Spies are supposed to operate in the shadows, not parade before the world’s media like a boy band. If nothing else, the sight of security service heads from the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand sharing a stage in California is a reminder of how radically the world has changed since the cloak-and-dagger days of the first Cold War.

The spy chiefs maintained a pitch-perfect harmony to rival BTS. Chinese industrial espionage poses an “unprecedented threat” to innovation in the countries of the Five Eyes, Christopher Wray, director of the FBI, told the first public summit of the intelligence-sharing alliance at Stanford University. Ken McCallum, director-general of Britain’s MI5, told the BBC that China’s spying was on an “epic scale.” Mike Burgess, head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, accused the Chinese government of being engaged in the “most sustained, scaled and sophisticated theft of intellectual property and expertise in human history.”

Subterfuge and misdirection are staple tools of the secret services. So when they go public in such unparalleled fashion, it’s natural to ask whether their agenda should be taken at face value, or if there’s more to it than meets the eye. Tradecraft would surely demand at least some kind of clandestine objective. In short, what is the play here?

The move toward greater transparency has been going on for a while. In the U.K., for example, MI5’s McCallum gave his first public address in 2020 and has provided an annual update since. This partly reflects efforts to regain public trust after the damage done by the Edward Snowden whistleblowing revelations a decade ago, according to Dan Lomas, assistant professor at the University of Nottingham. It’s also a function of a changing information environment, where the expanding power of social media makes it harder for authorities to shape narratives and counter disinformation. To retain public support, intelligence agencies now need to explain what they are doing and why.

As in information, so in military and security-related technology. Cynics may shrug; after all, Chinese theft of intellectual property has been going on for decades. We’re past DVDs, though. The stakes are much higher now. Back during the height of the Cold War, critical knowhow with the potential to affect the balance of power was in fewer hands, more susceptible to state control. The innovations that will shape the future of humanity — in areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and synthetic biology — are now dispersed across thousands of often smaller companies. Hence the siting of the Five Eyes summit in Silicon Valley, the lodestar of U.S. innovation.

The most immediate target audience of the Five Eyes, then, is the companies themselves. The concern is of a potential “dreadnought moment” — a military-technology breakthrough that renders older systems obsolete, Kristian Gustafson, deputy director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies in London, told me. It would be a shame if an epoch-defining edge was lost through casual LinkedIn contacts or careless sharing of USB ports. The implicit call is for tech companies to listen to and cooperate with the security services. China has a clear advantage here, with its one-party system giving the government far more sway over the private sector.

Beyond this, the more significant objective may be to influence public opinion and push back at mixed messages emanating from politicians. The view of China as a systemic and security threat is hardly new or controversial. The language used in California closely matches that of the U.K.’s Integrated Review Refresh 2023 (with foreword by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak). Yet governments also have one eye on China as a market and business opportunity, and this has muddied the waters. Britain’s ruling Conservative Party has torn itself apart over China; in Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was accused earlier this year of ignoring claims of Chinese interference in elections.

The thrust of the Five Eyes intervention is to reassert clarity: China is a country run by a party that is implacably hostile to the liberal values of open societies and intent on remaking the rules-based global order in a fashion more conducive to authoritarian regimes. This has always been the case, though it was possible for optimists to suspend disbelief during the years when China was developing fast thanks to that same U.S.-dominated system. In the era of Xi Jinping, it’s no longer possible to maintain this illusion, especially after the “no limits” partnership with Russia proclaimed last year.

None of this is cause for celebration. A world in which intelligence agencies don’t feel a need to appeal directly to the public would probably be a better one. “You will know when we’re succeeding — as nothing will hit the headlines,” as McCallum said in 2020. In the meantime, they have a message worth listening to.

Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure. Formerly, he was an editor for Bloomberg News and the South China Morning Post. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.