Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank Stratfor

Frankie70 writes "At 11:45 PST on Christmas Eve, hacking collective Anonymous disclosed that not only has it hacked the Stratfor website (since confirmed by Friedman himself), but has also obtained the full client list of over 4000 individuals and corporations, including their credit cards (which supposedly have been used to make $1 million in 'donations'), as well as over 200 GB of email correspondence."

Comments

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[FairAndHateful]

(facepalm) Riffs... They're called riffs... Damnit...

This is where I worry.

[Dexter Herbivore]

What happens the day that someone releases the names? What happens when some poor secretary who's name is on the list gets her details released to netizens without a social conscience. I understand that Stratfor are probably 'evil' from some of their recent actions, but if this activism is attempted then I hope that just a list of names isn't considered sufficient proof by and of itself of wrongdoing.

All I'm trying to say is that an itchy-trigger finger in obtaining information can lead to problems. I equate it to identifying downloaders by their IP, it's not sufficient proof and may be highly misleading.

Well good to know

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm glad that you've decided that "an angry mob" qualifies as sufficient proof for any kind of retaliation. If a group of people (or who knows, maybe just one person, not like you know how many were involved) decides someone or something is "evil" that is all the justification needed to do whatever.

Seriously, what a shitty standard. You blame someone because a mob gets angry at them. Ok, so do you blame abortion doctors who get killed? After all, they have a mob of angry Christians after them, one of them angry enough to resort to killing. Guess they must be as evil as the Christians claim, since the "angry mob" standard is what you use.

See how bad that is?

Re:Go!

[koan]

Yet you posted as "anonymous coward" how.... what's the word I want here...

Re:Go!

[koan]

If what you state is true regarding Stratfor's business, and I believe it is, then that brings up another question, was it really Anonymous that did this or someone else that didn't like "information that is inconvenient for the US government and it's allies" which, along with the charity fiasco, would ramp up the ire of the average Angry Bird player out there and give Carte blanche for the media to obfuscate the information war.

By the way kudos to George Friedman emailing his clients quickly with (relative) full disclosure, that a bit more character than the usual we see out there (right Commodo?)