An American directive, the IC 406, officially sanctions the “marriage” between secret services and Big Tech multinationals. A necessary pact or a surrender to corporate power? The line between public interest and private profit is becoming increasingly thin.
The New Face of Global Power
There is a precise moment in time, which perhaps you have missed. A moment that perhaps our descendants will be able to reread in a broader framework, giving it a historical dimension. It was when the wealth of Apple surpassed Romania's GDP: March 12, 2023. Today, according to data Barron's, 47 multinationals are worth more than the economies of entire sovereign states. To give you an idea:
It is in this context that the IC Directive 406 signed by the former director of national intelligence Avril haines, and wanted by the former US President Joe Biden (yes, exactly what denounces the risk of "oligarchy"). What does this directive do? One simple thing: it turns corporations into “national security entity”, diplomatically equating them to NATO allies.
If you want to learn more about the IC 406 directive I link it here. In the meantime I continue.
And not only.
"It's no longer a question of collaboration, but of dependence", commented an analyst of the Brookings Institute under anonymity. «Google Maps the World Better Than Spy Satellites, Amazon Manages Sensitive Data Better Than the NSA, Elon Musk Controls Access to Space». The directive authorizes for the first time to share classified intelligence with private entities through temporary “single readings”, bypassing traditional security controls.
The most explicit admission comes from William Burns, former CIA director: "In the 50s, we were the ones driving innovation. Today, we are chasing companies. Without them, we could not compete globally.". A paradigm shift that transforms CEOs into unofficial White House advisors, as it demonstrates the presence of Musk, Bezos and other "regents" at the court of the newly elected Trump. But what exactly are we witnessing? Corporate leaders rushing to kneel, “Trojan horses” in political power, or new masters? Sorry for the emphasis, I'm simplifying. Now I'm getting back on track.
National Security for Sale? The (More or Less) Calculated Risk
The directive introduces an explosive concept: “risk acceptance” in corporate relations. Translated: violating security protocols to access strategic data. "It's like opening the doors of Fort Knox to those who already have more gold than us.", jokes a former FBI agent.
There are three mechanisms envisaged:
- Targeted declassification: Making Top Secret Documents Public to Foster Partnerships
- Temporary Clearances: access to confidential information without thorough checks
- Collaborative processes: joint government-business decision-making tables
"The real danger is not foreign espionage, but conflict of interest", he warns Mary McCord, former national security prosecutor. “What if Musk uses classified satellite data to influence policies that benefit Tesla?”The directive explicitly prohibits favoritism, but the lack of enforcement mechanisms leaves room for interpretation.
And, in general, it creates a frightening “hybrid” that gives me an image: that of a financial “boa”, the multinationals, which has begun to definitively swallow the “elephant”, the nation states.
From the Cold War to the Cloud War
In the 60s, the CIA recruited scientists to beat the Soviets to the Moon. Today, Amazon Web Services It alone manages 45% of US intelligence clouds. "The difference is that before we controlled the technology, now we are dependent on it", explains Susan Gordon, former deputy director of national intelligence.
This full-blown situation, of course, did not begin today. Among the warning signs, that of the Project Maven, in 2018. Google withdrew from the military AI initiative at the time, causing an operational crisis. Now it's back in a big way, as widely expected. The Pentagon, to use a fancy term, will be forced to create “structural interdependencies” with multinationals.
The paradox? The same companies that collaborate with Washington They also sell technologies to China. In 2024, Microsoft supplied servers to a Beijing data center while developing anti-hacking tools for the CIA. «In the new digital geopolitics, multinationals are ambassadors without borders», Note Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group. Or the embryo of future, widespread “techno governments” supranational.
Multinationals are an anthropological mutation of power
It's hard to say, but it seems obvious to me: if the National security of a state becomes a joint venture with the private sector, citizens become mere data in an algorithm, and sometimes unwitting soldiers.
Don't believe it? Let me give you another example. IC Directive 406 explicitly authorizes the use of commercial data for intelligence operations. Yes, exactly: the data we produce every day using our cell phones, talking to a voice assistant, or… maybe while jogging. A concrete case? In 2023, the American NSA used the metadata of Fitbit to track movements of Russian officials in Syria. It's legal, maybe. But it defies every principle of privacy..
On the other hand, there are those who argue for the historical necessity of this pact. «Cyberattacks increase 300% per year», remember Chris Inglis, former cybersecurity advisor. «Without the innovation private, we could not protect critical infrastructures". On the other hand there are those, like Edward Snowden, warns national governments against giving Big Tech the keys to intelligence and weapons: it could become an “automated suicide”.
Multinationals, Towards a new world order: conclusions and scenarios
As always, many crucial acts are well hidden in the folds of “everyday information”, which sleeps on the crucial aspects, or deliberately distracts from the essential things.
The IC 406 directive, mind you, is not a simple bureaucratic update. It is the Birth certificate of a new governance model. With implications that go beyond US borders:
- In UE, Digital Markets Act seeks to limit the power of Big Tech, but 37 American companies
have already obtained exemptions for "security reasons"; - In China: State retains direct control over Alibaba and Tencent through golden shares, but boundaries could become blurred;
- In Russia: Gazprom e Yandex they have already become tools of hybrid warfare.
"We are writing the rules of the 21st century without a map"he concludes Hannah Bloch-Wehba, expert in technology law. «The risk? That the public-private collaboration transforms into an algorithmic dictatorship with the reassuring face of a commercial logo».
As Trump prepares his plan to “dominate cyberspace,” one question remains: In this new world, who will control the controllers?