The agreement was made from a 10-page Anglo-American intelligence agreement from 1943, brusa, linking the signal interception networks of the British Headquarters of Government Communications (GCHQ) and the US National Security Agency (NSA) to the beginning of the Cold War. The document was signed on March 5, 1946 by Colonel Patrick Marr-Johnson for the British London Signals Intelligence Board and Lieutenant General Hoyt Vandenberg for the U.S. State-Army-Navy Communication Intelligence Board. Although the original agreement stated that the exchanges would not be “detrimental to national interests,” the United States often blocked the exchange of information between Commonwealth countries. The full text of the agreement was made public on 25 June 2010.  According to the magazine L`Obs, in 2009, the United States proposed to France to join the five eyes, which would then have become the Six Eyes. Nicolas Sarkozy, however, asked to obtain the same status as the other allies, including the signing of a “non-espionage agreement”. This request was approved by the director of the NSA, but not by the director of the CIA and, beyond that, not by President Barack Obama, which led to a rejection of France.  n. the crime of federal government espionage and/or disclosure of state secrets on behalf of a foreign country.
The other country doesn`t have to be an “enemy,” so espionage doesn`t have to be a betrayal to help an enemy. (See: Betrayal, Sedition) The last camp that concerns the legality of collecting human intelligence is the skeptics. Academics in this camp argue that human intelligence is neither legal nor illegal under international law and do not see that state espionage is no longer practiced, that a consensus is emerging or an incentive for regulation (Radsan 2007, 623); Ratner 2007, 539). Proponents of this view of espionage disagree that human intelligence is a serious violation of territorial integrity and, in the absence of an explicit law, claim a neutral attitude towards espionage in general, which effectively refers to the Lotus judgment of 1927. This case has given rise to two judgments and two applicable precedents, the first of which is as follows: “Each State remains free to adopt the principles which it considers to be the most appropriate and appropriate” (P.C.I.J. 1927, para. 19) and the second: “It is for those who claim the existence of a state of law which limits the activity of the State to demonstrate the existence of such a restrictive rule” (Stone 1962, n. 33). The fact that States tend to deal with espionage offences in the national territory would indicate the application of that principle; And since many states themselves practice forms of espionage, they do not want to challenge crimes in the international legal system, fearing that they will lose control of the subject (Bowman, 1995, 328). This legal conception of the collection of information from the human secret services practically rejects the relevance of resolution 36/103 ga for espionage in general, thus ignoring the evolution of the position of States with regard to territorial integrity, which testifies to an essential element that would be missing in the skeptical argument of the law of the law. Nevertheless, even if there is no good legal basis for the legitimacy of human intelligence, the use of the lotus principle as an explanation of state behavior remains useful and will be used when it comes to cyber intelligence.