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

The Donations...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish they would stop doing that, the charities can end up eating a hell of a lot in chargeback fees when all is sorted out.

Re:The Donations...

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't how fraudulent donations are handled. Are you an FBI psyops agent deliberately spreading misinformation or are you just ill-informed?

Anonymous' Robin Hood Credit Card Fraud Campaign Could Hurt More Than Just Banks

For example, if p0isAnon members use the stolen credit card information to buy blankets for Occupy Wall Street protesters, the affected banks could initiate chargebacks to recover the money from merchants, who could be left to cover their losses if they didn't follow all the procedures correctly.

Kornbluth confirmed that chargebacks can also be initiated for fraudulent donations. There are multiple online reports from organizations and independent software developers who received fraudulent donations and were later forced to pay chargeback fees in addition to returning the donated amounts.

PayPal offers a donation service for nonprofits, but its user agreement states that sellers don't benefit from protection if the sold item is not a physical, tangible good that can be shipped. Since a donation doesn't meet this criteria, a successful chargeback for a fraudulent transaction could end up costing a nonprofit a fee of US$20 in addition to the donated amount.

Hmmmm.... maybe there is something else going on instead of what they claim.....

Fraudulent Donations Used To Test Stolen Credit Cards

It’s not always clear whether stolen credit card information will work so hackers have to find ways to “test” the data they steal. Thieves have found new way to accomplish this task. They have been using the Brighton, MI library’s online donation feature to see which cards will work.

Re:The Donations...

[poity]

And before anyone rushes to a conclusion either in support or against Anonymous, I encourage everyone to read past articles by Stratfor on google cache (advanced search, so might trigger captcha)

Re:The Donations...

[thogard]

I know of a charity that was used to test lots of card numbers and the bank happily took the money back and issued a charge back which was a real pain for the charity since they had already spent the money so now they can't help as many people.

obvious joke is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a Stratfor?

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[FairAndHateful]

What's a Stratfor?

Making awesome rifts and solos, of course. LINK

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[FairAndHateful]

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

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[605dave]

Good catch. That's a pet peeve of mine. Along with using football fields as a unit of measurement.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 27 soccer fields of stupidity to have pet peeves.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[shinehead]

Stratocasters are fine for pop music. Real rockers use Gibson SG's or a Les Paul...

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[poity]

The fact that so few people on /. know about Stratfor and the depth of insight they provide on international matters is disheartening to say the least, though I shouldn't be surprised given the deterioration of comment quality in the years. I encourage everyone on /. to join their free mailing list when they get back online (use a disposable account if you wish)

Seriously they give far better analysis on issues than 99% of "news" websites.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[koan]

Tell that to Hendrix.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[cyberchondriac]

Heh, or Eric Clapton, or James Young (Styx) or Jeff Beck, or 300 other famous rock guys.
Thing is, especially with today's high gain amps, any guitar (or pickup) can get you a heavy sound.
One could argue that *real* rockers (whatever that is) use ESPs, Charvels and and Jacksons with EMG or other active pickups for a really huge monster sound that puts Gibson PAFs to shame (insofar as gain, not tone).. one *could* argue that, but I won't.
It's all good to me. But we digress.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really cares about these arrogant "think tanks". A bunch of losers circle-jerking and patting each other on the back. They need to do some real work instead of engaging in mental masturbation all day.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[SteeldrivingJon]

It's not really a "think tank" in the sense of AEI or Heritage, which exist mostly to push a political agenda. It's more like Jane's (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx) or the Economist magazine's "Economist Intelligence Unit".

You know the companies that do market studies of storage makers, or mobile operating systems? Gartner and whatnot?

Stratfor, Jane's, etc, serve a similar purpose in the area of countries and regions, instead of product areas. Companies don't want to spend a bunch of money to hire staffers whose job is keeping track of what's going on in countries around the world. Apple doesn't want to have someone working to keep track of what may happen in Brazil or Turkey or Thailand when there is a change of government, or civil unrest. So they turn to companies that specialize in that sort of research and analysis.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[Mex]

Agreed. Even the comments that ask "Why is Stratfor evil" are at least more inquisitive than the people automatically saying Anon was right. It's ridiculous how "educated" commenters don't know about Stratfor.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[cyberchondriac]

What are you on about? I have never heard anyone say that someone's a "real rocker" if they use active pickup/ESP/Charvel/Jackson combos. Most people are all about DiMarzio, insofar as pickups. Also, being a real rocker has nothing to do with gear. It's cliched, but tone is in your fingers.

I just love mis-attributions like this. Talk about whoosh. I was replying to Shinehead, who used the term "real rockers", (which is why I put it in quotes) with much the same sentiment as you're expressing here. Your beef is not with me. I even said "one could argue" but "not me". Next time read more carefully and don't be so quick to jump down someone's throat.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I'm rarely disheartened by what I read, but this got me. Stratfor is not only far more insightful than regular news outlets (for example, they called Mubarak's resignation a military coup just as CNN et al were declaring victory), they also teach their readers the patterns that exist in human societies (e.g. why Americans will fight to keep the US whole and why Europeans won't do the same for EU). And they give tons of it away for free. And what's ironic, they recently had an analysis concluding that Anonymous actually do have a chance of success in their fight against the drug cartels.

The disheartening part is this unwillingness to learn -- to hear what someone who is not a bozo in a certain domain has to say on the topic and then to judge for themselves.

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[LVSlushdat]

James Young (Styx)

That's Dennis DeYoung (Styx)...

The MusicNazi...

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[cyberchondriac]

I appreciate your attempt at clarification, but Dennis DeYoung was the keyboard player (and vocalist), not a guitarist.
James Young and Tommy Shaw were the guitar players during the "Grand Illusion" and "Pieces of Eight" era -Tommy Shaw had replaced John Curulewski)
James Young also sang on some of their tunes, such as Miss America and Great White Hope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Young_(American_musician)

Man, now I've really shown my age, haven't I?

Re:obvious joke is obvious

[Vathek]

Gretsch all the way, baby

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.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Amouth]

on that same note - normal "discovery" processes allow too much time and opportunity for people to cover their tracks.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Shark]

If Stratfor is evil enough to have an angry mob want to punish all the members on that list, I'd still blame Stratfor for endangering the employees that had nothing to do with their evil. It's pretty easy to shove the blame all one way or the other, but really, I think some falls onto each hand. Anonymous should be careful of what they release, the secretary should be careful of who she works for and Stratfor should... well, just not exist.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Yvanhoe]

Using only a list of names without any supplemental information about involvement would be pretty bad. Yeah, imagine for instance the TSA doing things like that.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Dexter Herbivore]

Actually, after having a look through the list, it appears that most of the clients may have subscribed to any level of geopolitical intelligence. Although some of the clients appearing most often seem to be financial institutions so possibly this is mainly analysis of investment data?

Re:This is where I worry.

[causality]

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.

The flip side of that ... is that choosing not to work for Satan means having a lot less to fear from would-be exorcists.

There are career paths I personally didn't take because I realized the particular industry was corrupt to its core and I wanted no part in that. An honest living that does not make the world a worse place is an integral part of a clear conscience. The kind of numb indifference it would take to not care about such things, to consider them a bother and not a responsibility, would be like a sort of living death.

Since some of you have severe reading comprehension problems, and love to project your personal interpretation onto whatever you read, I'll spell this out for you: nowhere did I say it's perfectly OK that underlings may catch some of the fallout for decisions made by the higher-ups. What I am saying is that if they were more careful about choosing their employer they wouldn't have these concerns. When you choose to become part of something, you're part of it, for better or worse.

The evil organizations of the world never seem to have a problem finding those who will join ranks with them. Ever notice that and wonder if that's the real problem?

Re:This is where I worry.

[Hentes]

You don't have to be evil to have an angry mob of trolls want to punish you.

Re:This is where I worry.

[ae1294]

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.

She'll be collateral damage...

Re:This is where I worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no innocent employee of evil organizations. If you chose to act in support of such an organization, then you deserve what you get.

Not to Godwin the thread, but your point is like saying, "Oh, he was just some poor guard in the SS". Sorry, no - that's how evil is done, by the actions of the common man. Acting in support of evil makes you evil, it doesn't make you some "poor victim secretary".

Re:This is where I worry.

[Dexter Herbivore]

You shouldn't get me wrong either, I don't believe that corporations should get away with 'evil'. However in life it's not always easy to recognise that you've ended up in the wrong place, and some individuals on this list probably have no idea that some people even consider this organisation evil. Any individuals named on this list shouldn't have their details released unless they are considered public personages (politicians etc), there shouldn't be a carte blanche to release all of the details without some scrutiny or at least some thought about the issues. After examination, maybe all of the names do get released and maybe they don't. Checks and balances which appear to be lacking in groups like anonymous.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Hartree]

"what "recent actions"?"

Probably writing papers saying that Julian Assange and Wikileaks weren't going to fundamentally change the world the way that some were billing them.

They've said similar about Anonymous itself, too.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Dexter Herbivore]

If you're going to Godwin, even some senior nazis were found innocent of war crimes... let alone the SS guards. Not every member of a corporation is personally responsible for 'evil' actions of some of it's members.

Re:This is where I worry.

[khallow]

What happens if I drop mustard gas on them and the mob goes away? Did I just get less evil?

Re:This is where I worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

SF's actions are good, and are on the same line with Wikileaks. They make previously undisclosed information available publicly, so the average Joe can be in on the thinking processes of governments, intelligence services, etc.

I have no comments about the hacking action, but branding them evil is childish at best.

Re:This is where I worry.

[SuricouRaven]

An evil employer starts to look a lot less evil when you've a family to feed and children to get through college.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Type44Q]

It tends to help...

Re:This is where I worry.

[drinkypoo]

Under a system of capitalism you have but one real vote, where you choose to spend your money. Investing in (or even with) evil is evil. One of the major benefits of capitalism is that it provides a mechanism to determine where the evil is coming from, and what it has done: follow the money. We must stop ignoring this benefit, and make it central to our capitalism, or see it fall to some other system.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Dexter Herbivore]

And checks and balances carried out by the legal system works?

We just went through years of financial collapse because the system of checks and balances were completely complicit with the corporations. Why on Earth are you complaining about Anonymous blowing the cover off corporations when the government proved itself incapable of doing that in the first place?

This is like trying to arrest a mechanic who offers to install seat belts into your car because the government won't mandate such a requirement from the car manufacturers.

Checks and balances in a system which has already been significantly undermined aren't checks and balances at all. Don't mistake ineffective measures with a complete lack of them.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Shark]

Actually, you have a good point there. I honestly don't know, but Anonymous decided that what they do is evil and went all vigilante hacktivist on 'em. Maybe those guys are pure as snow but really just have very bad PR... Still, it's something I definitely would consider before accepting a job. What's the risk of a whole group of people -or even just some lone nut- deciding that I'm part of some nasty business and deserve some sort of retaliation? Every decision bears a level of risk that one must evaluate to the best of our ability, be it crossing a road or having sex or taking a job from some unpopular business.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Jiro]

That only applies when the evil is really obvious, such as shooting people in the streets or sending them to concentration camps to have their dead bodies used for soap obvious.

We can't expect every low level employee to be judge and jury and determine that a company is doing something wrong. The bad things the company does may not be obvious to laypeople, or may even be done in backroom deals to which the secretary isn't privy unless s/he hires an independent accountant to analyze the company's revenue statements.

To use an example that Slashdotters may be familiar with, you don't like the RIIA, but do you think your non-geek grandmother should be expected to figure that they are evil by herself?

And where does this end, anyway? Am I allowed to work at the McDonalds around the corner from the big company? After all, I know that employees of the company come there to buy food, so my salary indirectly comes from them, and I support them, even though I'm not actually their employee. (For that matter, McDonalds has done some evil things. Are all McDonalds employees now legitimate targets, on the grounds that they should know better than to work for an evil corporation?)

Re:This is where I worry.

[Hartree]

I wonder if they decided to go hacktivist before or after the site was cracked?

I could easily see someone pulling off a sql injection attack or some such on a site, and finding a list with a lot of corporate names in it. Then, telling friends "I cracked a major corporate nerve center".

But, take a look at the corporate list they posted. It's the "company" field from some subscription web form. It also has things like "self employed", phone numbers, "Do Not Renew", "N/A", "None", lots of entries of "retired", etc.

I don't think this is a list of confidential corporate clients so much as whatever a lot of subscribers happened to put in that field of the web form.

As to them all being evil: How is Doctors Without Borders evil? Thats one of the entries in the list too. *shrug*

Re:This is where I worry.

[Solandri]

The flip side of that ... is that choosing not to work for Satan means having a lot less to fear from would-be exorcists. [...] What I am saying is that if they were more careful about choosing their employer they wouldn't have these concerns.

The problem is that there is no absolute definition of Satan. Anonymous hackers come in as many varieties as the people/companies they hack. No matter what your beliefs, morals, or political affiliation, there is a hacker out there who disagrees with you. The only way to choose "not to work for Satan" in the eyes of all hackers, is to choose not to work at all.

The evil organizations of the world never seem to have a problem finding those who will join ranks with them. Ever notice that and wonder if that's the real problem?

That's a question as old as democracy. Can a just democracy survive the shenanigans of evil organizations without resorting to evil tactics itself? Can you become what you behold and be content that you have done right? Because that's what you're doing if you do not condemn black hat hacking when it's used to take down evil organizations. I won't say if it's right or wrong; I haven't been able to decide yet for myself.

Re:This is where I worry.

[khallow]

Maybe those guys are pure as snow but really just have very bad PR...

With who?

Re:This is where I worry.

[joocemann]

If you dont like the reality of collateral damage, you should retreat to the woods and never look back. Medicare cuts cause deaths. policing the world does. war on drugs. etc etc all the way down to your local city apportions of spending... damage.

nothing is perfect, and the moves necessary to bring about a better world will include the death of the innocent. and beyond utilitarianism, reality still has this feature.

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"I understand that Stratfor are probably 'evil' from some of their recent actions" How do you figure? They're mostly an open-source (i.e. public source) intelligence analysis shop, who produce reports about geopolitical issues for customers. Stuff like "what are the odds of Jordan's government being toppled like other Middle Eastern states have been?" It's pretty much like hacking the Economist. Or Jane's. They're not a defense contractor, they're not like some kind of intelligence version of Blackwater. The "Anonymous" people in this case are just idiots.

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"If Stratfor is evil enough to have an angry mob want to punish all the members on that list"

This is like the English morons who threatened a pediatrician because they didn't know the difference between "pediatrician" and "pedophile".

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"Although some of the clients appearing most often seem to be financial institutions so possibly this is mainly analysis of investment data?"

Probably political information so the financial institutions can estimate the stability of the country, likelihood of disruptions, etc. Maybe stuff like the level of involvement of the military in the economy.

Re:This is where I worry.

[flyingsquid]

The flip side of that ... is that choosing not to work for Satan means having a lot less to fear from would-be exorcists. Since some of you have severe reading comprehension problems, and love to project your personal interpretation onto whatever you read, I'll spell this out for you: nowhere did I say it's perfectly OK that underlings may catch some of the fallout for decisions made by the higher-ups. What I am saying is that if they were more careful about choosing their employer they wouldn't have these concerns. When you choose to become part of something, you're part of it, for better or worse. The evil organizations of the world never seem to have a problem finding those who will join ranks with them. Ever notice that and wonder if that's the real problem?

I have a hard time seeing what makes Stratfor "evil". The name "Stratfor" definitely has a kind of evil overlord sound to it, but the reality is that they're a sort of boring organization. "Stratfor" means "Strategic Forecasting", which is a fancy way of saying "news analysis". They aren't doing cloak-and-dagger missions like the CIA, and they aren't doing electronic eavesdropping like the NSA, they are mostly just looking at the news reports and the economic data and trying to figure out what it all means. They try to make sure the government knows what's going on... which is important. A lot of the bad stuff in the world- 9/11 and the War on Terror, the invasion of Iraq- happens because the people in power don't really have an accurate picture what the fuck is going on, and make stupid decisions.

Hell, look up the bio of Stratfor CEO George Friedman on Wikipedia. So who is this dude? He's not some ex-CIA spook with years of overseas experience. He's got a PhD in government and spent twenty years teaching political science. We're not talking about a stone-cold assassin who trekked through the Central American jungle to assassinate a revolutionary with Marxist tendencies. We are talking about a guy who spent two decades preparing lectures for stoned undergrads, writing books, grading papers, and dutifully showing up for really boring departmental meetings. He probably got tired of academia, had a midlife crisis, and thought intelligence analysis would be more fun. This is not a guy who would strangle you in your sleep with a length of piano wire, although he could probably bore you to death with a discussion of the strategic implications of rising crude oil prices.

If you want to fight "evil", fine. Good luck with that. But maybe you should first get a clue and spend at least fifteen minutes on Wikipedia reading about what these supposedly "evil" organizations actually do before taking a deeply held political stand. Otherwise your'e just acting out of ignorance... and ignorant people probably do just as much damage in the world as evil people do.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Anonymous where able to do this, then someone with a really bad intent could have done it before without telling anyone.

Re:This is where I worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

I may have $X dollars to vote with. However, those who are working near the limits between good and evil have $100,000X to vote with.

Re:This is where I worry.

[coastwalker]

Exactly. So where in this amusing debate on the evil ways of Statfor and whether they deserved to have it stuck to them is a single question of whether the Anonemous who have claimed to do the dirty deed are in any way related to any of the previous members of the loose flakey cabal which we think of as anonemous? I bet you a Big Mac that the turgid crowd currently wreaking havoc on the system of tubes are actually no friends of any previous holders of the title anonemous and are actually just a seriously unpleasent bunch of either morons or paid assasins. What makes you think that they are not in the employ of the Scientology organisation? Take a careful look at their language, is it current, is it believeable that they are who they say they are? Or did a committy of suits orchestrate this stuff? Its too soon to tell right now but I smell a rat.

Re:This is where I worry.

[ahabswhale]

There's actually very little info on what they do on wikipedia. I like how you make it out like it's highly unlikely for them to do evil. You have no idea what they do other than the very public stuff they are known for. Isn't it possible that they do some things that are less than honorable? Perhaps they are just an intelligence arm for corps that are trying to figure out new ways to screw indigenous people out of their natural resources. I don't know but I do know people aren't giving them millions of dollars for some generic intelligence info. The wikipedia entry refers to them as a civilian CIA. It's just common sense, dude.

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"There is no innocent employee of evil organizations. If you chose to act in support of such an organization, then you deserve what you get." And if some nut job decides that posting anonymously on a forum is "evil"?

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"There are career paths I personally didn't take because I realized the particular industry was corrupt to its core and I wanted no part in that. An honest living that does not make the world a worse place is an integral part of a clear conscience"
Since when does the dissemination of information come under such categories?
Do you object to libraries? What are you doing on the internet? Isn't it objectionable to you?

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

Er, no. If there's anything we know about trolls and bullies, it's that they often don't give a shit about whether the victims deserve it.

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"Perhaps they are just an intelligence arm for corps that are trying to figure out new ways to screw indigenous people out of their natural resources."

Yeah, I'm sure that's why Doctors Without Borders is a customer. They're all about screwing indigenous people out of their natural resources.

Re:This is where I worry.

[ahabswhale]

ROFL...they also have a laundry list of customers that most people would classify as evil (e.g., Blackwater). So try again.

Re:This is where I worry.

[PPH]

"I understand that Stratfor are probably 'evil' from some of their recent actions"

How do you figure?

You are 'evil' if you expose the activities or intents of people that label you as such to scrutiny. Particularly when said scrutiny might impede these activities.

Re: This is where I worry.

[davepander]

Wow, I subscribed to Stratfor as a grad student and really appreciated their balanced analysis. Not only that, they talked about travel safety and freely published the bulk of their analysis. I always saw them as a great source of information that wasn't colored by the politically influenced mass media. What a shame, Anonymous just lost a lot of credit in my book. Now they took my Debit Card #? I hope my rent check doesn't bounce, things are still tight.

Re:This is where I worry.

[PPH]

If Stratfor is evil enough to have an angry mob want to punish all the members on that list,

"Angry mobs" are quite easily assembled and controlled for numerous purposes. One of Stratfor's missions is to dig down and find the organizers behind such movements. Hence the attack.

Sure, corporations use Stratfor's intelligence to formulate strategy. But the smart ones will react to fix problems in their operations if they generate true grass roots negative opinion. That isn't necessarily evil. Its the astroturfers that might not like such a service when it exposes a few of the organizers of the mob as having hidden agendas.

I'd suggest looking at Stratfor's recent reports for the possible identities of such organizers.

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

So does a newspaper, a computer vendor, or a power company. So what?

Re:This is where I worry.

[SteeldrivingJon]

You're talking nonsense.

Re:This is where I worry.

[ahabswhale]

My point is that you have no argument.

Re:This is where I worry.

[metaforest]

You shouldn't get me wrong either, I don't believe that corporations should get away with 'evil'. However in life it's not always easy to recognise that you've ended up in the wrong place, and some individuals on this list probably have no idea that some people even consider this organisation evil. Any individuals named on this list shouldn't have their details released unless they are considered public personages (politicians etc), there shouldn't be a carte blanche to release all of the details without some scrutiny or at least some thought about the issues. After examination, maybe all of the names do get released and maybe they don't. Checks and balances which appear to be lacking in groups like anonymous.

Hmm I'm reminded of an Esop fable about a flock of crows, a crane and a farmer... The Farmer netted a flock of crows and the crane was trapped as well.
The crane paid the ultimate price (along with the crows) for the 'crime' of the crows due to being caught up in a war that did not concern it. (Cranes don't eat seeds, OTOH: Corvids will eat anything that does not try to eat them first.)

Two issues come to mind. 1: The indiscriminate 'justice' of the farmer. And 2: the incautious crane who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Where does fault really lie?

Seems like social order is running into more and more of these grey areas....

Re:This is where I worry.

[budgenator]

You do realize that the typical CIA "agent" is a liberal arts major, typically a historian who spends the majority of his or her day reading news papers and other sources and writing summaries of what's been read, and trying to figure out what hasn't been written about. Most of the sexy Hollywood stuff is just that.

Re:This is where I worry.

[ahabswhale]

The liberal arts loaded CIA has also done a lot of evil shit. I don't get your point.

Re:This is where I worry.

[causality]

You shouldn't get me wrong either, I don't believe that corporations should get away with 'evil'. However in life it's not always easy to recognise that you've ended up in the wrong place, and some individuals on this list probably have no idea that some people even consider this organisation evil.

No, it's not always easy to recognize. In fact lots of times it is not. It takes discernment.

I'll put it to you this way. Consider the time, effort, and energy that is routinely poured into useless pursuits like celebrity worship and jock-sniffing (i.e. athlete worship) and all the fuss and worry about the intimate private lives of people not because they are involved in one's own life but because they can sing, dance, act, or play a sport. I'd wager that less than one-tenth of that effort would be required to cultivate the kind of wise discernment I'm talking about.

It's not a matter of inability. It's a matter of priority combined with the notion of reaping what you sow. How many of those individuals took half an afternoon to do any research on an organization and its practices and its history prior to deciding to dedicate a career working in it? How many of them considered that most employers perform at least basic background checks prior to making a job offer for all of the same reasons? Just like the situation with network security, they couldn't be bothered and decided it should be someone else's job and received their results accordingly.

I don't know at what point our society decided it was a virtue to never do anything yourself, to never be terribly involved in even important decisions, and to never take some responsibility for one's own situation rather than being willfully helpless and pretending to be a victim, but to quote Bill Hicks, "I missed that meeting".

Re:This is where I worry.

[Hartree]

Why, I think that's exactly what he's saying.

I can nearly guarantee that Blackwater has bought first aid kits.

Therefore in AhabsWhale's world, first aid kits must merely be an evil plot to to undermine humanity and commit evil acts. Q.E.D.

I think a couple of books on logic sitting on the bookshelf next to me committed suicide when they got too close to AhabsWhale's post being displayed on my laptop screen.

Re:This is where I worry.

[causality]

The problem is that there is no absolute definition of Satan. Anonymous hackers come in as many varieties as the people/companies they hack. No matter what your beliefs, morals, or political affiliation, there is a hacker out there who disagrees with you. The only way to choose "not to work for Satan" in the eyes of all hackers, is to choose not to work at all.

The best way to work around that lack of absolute, perfect definition is to instead regard whether all dealings it has involve no use of force or fraud and are therefore entirely voluntary for all participants. If not, you have an objectively evil organization. For example, deliberate vendor lock-in is a kind of force used to artificially raise the cost of doing business with a competitor and serves no other purpose; it is evil and it is a cowardly act performed by those who do not believe in their own merits and thus fear open competition.

That's a question as old as democracy. Can a just democracy survive the shenanigans of evil organizations without resorting to evil tactics itself?

No democracy or republic can survive long if its people are broken and needy. Such people have vulnerabilities that dictators and such easily exploit by giving broken people a false sense of worth, usually some form of nationalism or other irrational, emotional pride that always needs to create an enemy in order to triumph over it. This is not at all the same as legitimately defending oneself against an unprovoked attack by an aggressor.

Can you become what you behold and be content that you have done right? Because that's what you're doing if you do not condemn black hat hacking when it's used to take down evil organizations.

In a vacuum, I would agree with you. The problem is, it is not a vacuum. The very best, time-tested, and most highly effective way to create vigilantes is to selectivey enforce existing laws such that some people have justice and others do not. Ever heard that saying that everyone wants either less corruption or more opportunities to participate in it? Our government is certainly in the latter camp and that's why anyone at Anonymous ever thought to do any of these things.

Even people who are rotten to the core recognize a need to have some kind of justification for their actions. The difference between them and noble people is that rotten ones don't care how absurd, flimsy, or transparent the justification is and will happily make one up if it suits their purposes. The street thug might pull his pistol on someone who makes eye contact, but he does at least wait for eye contact.

Re:This is where I worry.

[datsa]

You need to read Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Re:Go!

[Dexter Herbivore]

Here's an interesting one: Barrick Gold Corp. Pueblo Viejo Project. I wonder if it had anything to with this:

In 2002, Barrick Gold was chosen by the Dominican government to conduct a feasibility study on the property which yielded a 25 year mine life.

Just the slightly cynical, slightly suspicious side of me coming out.

Bizarre target..

[sstamps]

Most people will go "Stratwho?", shrug their shoulders and go back to eating their turkey sandwiches.

Re:Bizarre target..

[Osgeld]

Ham sandwich for me

Re:Bizarre target..

[Osgeld]

mmmm delicious pork products

Re:Bizarre target..

[Anonymous Coward]

, and your lack of humor

Re:Bizarre target..

[Rockoon]

It seems like a lot of slashdotters are saying that that stratfor is 'evil' or some such, but not a damn one of them can explain why.

It would be funny of LolSec went after Anonymous because Anonymous is acting evil here.

Re:Bizarre target..

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like a lot of slashdotters are saying that that stratfor is 'evil' or some such, but not a damn one of them can explain why.

Exactly.

The comments on this thread show me how low the comments on Slashdot have sunk. I probably won't be renewing my subscription and leave the site for good when the time comes.

Re:Bizarre target..

[TapeCutter]

That's not what the pigs say.

Re:Bizarre target..

[flimflammer]

Admit it; you probably wont leave.

Re:Bizarre target..

[sgt_doom]

Thanks, great comment and most appropriate on-target remark, sstamps.

Stratfor is where all the Mental Category types go, like that moron, the former Montgomery County cop, who wrote that godawful piece of trash, Ghost, which really is an example of the idiots they have been staffing the government intel agencies with the past 20 to 30 years as they slowly privatized the American intel establishment, with the upper (and crooked) echelon going over to the super-paying private sector intel jobs, while the douchebaggers are hired at the civil service level.

This morning I heard a spineless, gutless airhead (Nada fewmets or something), a former 10-year CIA analyst, excuse her abominably cowardly behavior in going along with the Cheney-Bush (now Bush-Obama) administration's illegal invasion into Iraq.

Stratfor’s CEO, George Friedman, Thomas Friedman, Jaclyn Friedman, Stephen Friedman....too many, many Friedmans, me thinks?

Re:Go!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are Anonymous. It is not possible to shut us up or kill us all. If you cut a head off, two more will grow back.

What if an acid or fire based attack is used when cutting off a head?

The technique works for Hydras.

Alert!

[jaypifer]

A netizen with a moral conscience! Employ remoralization agents!

Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Sycraft-fu]

So why would it be better when some random script kiddies, who have even less oversight than the TSA, do it for their own ends? When one group does something stupid or bad it does not magically become ok if another group does it.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Yvanhoe]

I completely agree. I don't say it is right, I am saying that both sides are using similar methods and that if you are supporting one side, you can't claim it is because of the other side's methods.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So why would it be better when some random script kiddies ..."

I always love it when someone who probalby couldn't hack their way out of a wet paper bag refers to true hackers as script kiddies. I have to at least give them "props" for their technical acumen regardless of whether I believe their behavior is "right" or "wrong", which is of course a completely false dichotomy.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[joocemann]

Cool straw man you made. obvious too.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[joocemann]

I agree. And i defer to the fact that most anon members are still free and active, despite very heavy counterforces, as evidence that they are actually powerful and underestimated. Youve really got to be pretty good if everyone is watching, corps banks and govt are doing their best to stop them, and little to nobody has yet to be stopped. If anything, ive seen more hacktivism after they were noticed.... so calling anon script kiddies is like saying the us government and most IT pros are complete idiots....

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[SteeldrivingJon]

You realize that there are different kinds of security, don't you?

Being able to analyze the security situation of executives working in Colombia and advise on how to keep them safe from abduction doesn't mean you claim you are the NSA.

That Anonymous seems to have confused this issue is a big indicator that the hack was done by an ignorant script kiddie, not a competitor.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Zero__Kelvin]

I notice that pretty much everyone that tries to belittle their skills post as anonymous cowards. Your (i.e. collective your) actions belie your words ;-)

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[cavreader]

These losers are script kiddies. They use tools developed by others, use attack vectors discovered and published by others, and basically rely on the negligence of the IT departments involved. Those capable of creating things like Stuxnet are the real experts in the field. None of the Anon actions have made any difference to society other than giving the government ammunition to impose harsher penalties for those involved. If they piss off the wrong people and the NSA or other security agencies start taking an interest in them they are as good as caught. People severely underestimate the US security Agencies, especially the NSA, cyber capabilities. Capabilities they tend to prefer to keep secret. As it is Anon are not worth the time or money to go after.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[khallow]

So why would it be better when some random script kiddies, who have even less oversight than the TSA

What makes you think they have less oversight? Last I checked, script kiddies could go to jail for obtaining the information, much less releasing it. That seems more oversight than is present with the TSA which not only can legally obtain the information, but even has rent seeker positions (such as controlling access to airlines in the US) that allow it great leverage in getting that information.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Zero__Kelvin]

"If they piss off the wrong people and the NSA or other security agencies start taking an interest in them they are as good as caught."

From this article:

"Over the past eight months, he’s been linked to attacks on some of the world’s biggest companies, including Sony, Nintendo, News Corp. and PBS, as well as a number of governmental organizations and the controversial Westboro Baptist Church."

So your claim that they haven't pissed off the wrong people means you either don't know who they have pissed off, or you have no idea how the Corporatocracy works. Hell, they didn't just piss off major corporations and governments, they pissed off GOD! ;-) Indeed, the FBI is involved at the very least. Yours is a classic case of sour grapes. You don't like what they are doing, so you want to believe that their "sk1l7z 2ux0r", even though you don't know who they are or how they operate, despite your claims to the contrary. Let's explore your claim further.

From Wikipedia: In a Carnegie Mellon report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense in 2005, script kiddies are defined as "The more immature but unfortunately often just as dangerous exploiter of security lapses on the Internet. The typical script kiddy uses existing and frequently well known and easy-to-find techniques and programs or scripts to search for and exploit weaknesses in other computers on the Internet—often randomly and with little regard or perhaps even understanding of the potentially harmful consequences.[5]

So as we can see, even if we accept your claim that they are clueless buffoons from a technical standpoint even though that flies in the face of direct evidence (or more accurately, lack thereof), the best term to describe them is still not script kiddies, merely because social consequences is their primary focus.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[budgenator]

As it is Anon are not worth the time or money to go after.

Maybe, or maybe not, given the amount of cyber-attacks directed against the US and it's interests be people supposedly associated with governments like China and Russian and/or east European crime syndicates, I can see where have a few patsies would be handy. I noticed on the TV news reports last night they said Anon was a "Highly Organised Hacker group", seems like that's the first step to being declared cyber-terrorists.

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[cavreader]

I never claimed they were "clueless buffoons" you did. At the very least they know how to access the Internet. They are just minor nuisance's that can be easily countered by properly configuring your servers and remain current on security patches. So far all of their actions have only created harm to the regular users. Just getting new credit cards issued can be a pain in the ass. Also are you willing to take their (his,her,it's) word that they have not sold the credit card information to others that are capable putting them to good use?

Re:Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I never claimed they were "clueless buffoons" you did. At the very least they know how to access the Internet."

Script Kiddies are clueless buffoons from a technical standpoint (see what happens when you read the whole sentence? It means something else!)

"So far all of their actions have only created harm to the regular users."

That is truly a ridiculous satement.

"Also are you willing to take their (his,her,it's) word that they have not sold the credit card information to others that are capable putting them to good use?"

When all else fails, change the subject, eh?

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:Well good to know

[TubeSteak]

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.

White knighting the corporate world isn't going to get you very far these days.
Many of their crimes are known and public opinion is against them.

If our elected representatives continue to refuse to prosecute wrongdoing in the corporate world, you should expect more hacktivism.
It's not fair, but neither is it fair what has been done to the American (and as a side effect, the rest of the world's) people.

You blame someone because a mob gets angry at them. Ok, so do you blame abortion doctors who get killed?

Hacking a server and killing a doctor are not the same thing.
Nice try though.

Re:Well good to know

[Shark]

I don't really blame anyone. I just think the freedom to do what one wishes should be met with the responsibility of considering its implications, on all sides. My point here is that everybody has that responsibility when they exercise their liberty. Anonymous is free to do hacktivism but also have a responsibility to consider the consequences. Stratfor is free to do whatever it is they do but they have a responsibility to evaluate the consequences. And to a smaller extent, the secretary or janitor or whoever is free to accept the job offer but has the responsibility to consider just who they're working for. If I worked for a seal hunting company, I'd definitely consider the risk of getting randomly assaulted by people who get very angry at that sort of thing. If I worked as a soldier, I'd consider the risk of being insulted and blamed for fighting wars I really had no say in going to, etc.

Re:Well good to know

[Bob9113]

You blame someone because a mob gets angry at them.

Not sure about OP, and I completely understand the validity of your post in the context of a response to his or her post.

An angry mob (or a lone gunman) is, however, a good reason to take a closer look at the situation. Sometimes it is just an angry basement-dweller with a bad attitude, but when someone shouts fire, it is worthwhile to take a look and see if there is a fire (and to hold the shouter accountable as appropriate).

Ok, so do you blame abortion doctors who get killed?

Not immediately, but I would certainly want to hear the murderer's motive in the process of prosecuting him or her. Killing someone is a pretty big step for most people and not an action that should be discounted lightly. Just as they may be delusional about being the vessel of God's wrath, it could be that the abortion doctor was performing partial birth abortions on healthy patients with healthy fetuses at full term.

The point being that just as an angry mob does not mean the target is necessarily guilty, being in an angry mob (or even being a lone gunman) does not mean the torch-wielder is necessarily a misanthropic lunatic.

The angry mob is a warning signal which is prone to false positives and usually includes some measure of unjustifiable hostility -- but sometimes it is the least costly opportunity we get to observe and correct a substantive problem. Like the "Check Engine" light on your car, sometimes it means the oil change place forgot to reset the mile counter, sometimes it means they left the oil drain plug loose. Ignoring societal warning signs is as dangerous as giving them unlimited credence.

Re:Well good to know

[Sycraft-fu]

It's not white knighting, it is pointing out a logical problem with the argument. The argument is that "If there's an angry mob that hates you, you must be evil." My argument is "Not necessarily, maybe the mob is just stupid." Hence the abortion doctor thing. Or are you going to try for the argument that "angry mob" judgement is ok, but only so long as it is done to a specific standard? In that case, what's the standard?

I'm simply pointing you the stupidity as the assertion that having an angry mob mad at you means you did something "evil". I can point out a lot of people and organizations that have had angry mobs after them that I'd say did a lot of good.

Also, perhaps you'd care to enlighten everyone as to what Stratfor has done that is so "evil". If your assessment is just that they are a corporation and corporations are evil then my only response can be that you need to grow the fuck up and learn a whole lot more about the world. If you have specifics as to what makes them "evil" and particularly evil enough to deserve being hacked and that any collateral damage is ok, well then why not share.

Re:Well good to know

[Hartree]

"If you worked in one of those Batman comic factories"

You mean a printer?

"with uncovered vats of toxic waste"

You mean ink?

Re:Well good to know

[flyingsquid]

White knighting the corporate world isn't going to get you very far these days. Many of their crimes are known and public opinion is against them.

You seem to feel that the Anonymous attacks against Stratfor are justified. So I have a question for you. Can you even tell us what exactly Stratfor is and just what it is that they do- without looking it up on Google or Wikipedia?

Re:Well good to know

[SteeldrivingJon]

"It just lacks the ability to defend itself, that's the job of it's mother."

Ah. So a woman is just an incubator. I assume you would sacrifice the mother to possibly save the fetus, if complications occur?

Re:Well good to know

[Raenex]

Neither you nor anybody else in the chain of parents or replies identified what, exactly, Stratfor was "evil" for, except for nebulous comments about "corporations". So follow your own advice.

Re:Well good to know

[bjourne]

That's just a lot of fingerpointing and maybes. What happened is that someone of them found an easily exploitable site, possibly an sql injection or a known vulnerability in an off the shelf software. They then made up a silly excuse about how it is righteous for them to hack said site and did so. Previously they have exploited a message boards softwares failure to strip html tags to post flashing images on a board for epileptics, blaming any seizures caused by said images on the webmasters failure to secure his software. Dumped customer email and usernames to a porn site because uh.. people looking at porn are bad? Hacked a Finnish government site becasue uh... Finland is ruled by a brutal military regime suppressing freedom of expression?

Re:Well good to know

[Bob9113]

That's just a lot of fingerpointing and maybes.

The purpose of my post is to try to establish a framework for analyzing the radically different reactions some people have shown to The Arab Spring versus Western dissidence.

Previously they have exploited a message boards softwares failure to strip html tags to post flashing images on a board for epileptics,

Seriously? From the article:

"I'm pretty sure I saw a thread about this while browsing ebaumsworld, so yeah, it was probably those f-----s," said another.

Fascinating evidence of wrongdoing. You are an idiot.

Re:Well good to know

[colinrichardday]

And they don't? Or should I just "Whoosh" myself?

Re:Well good to know

[TubeSteak]

You seem to feel that the Anonymous attacks against Stratfor are justified. So I have a question for you. Can you even tell us what exactly Stratfor is and just what it is that they do- without looking it up on Google or Wikipedia?

Stratfor is part of the nebulous world of private intelligence and analysis.
They exist to dig up and sell information to companies so that they can have first mover advantage over the rest of us.

Being part of the military industrial complex is more than enough reason for them to be a target.
I'm guessing the 200GBs that Anonymous has will end up being like the wikileaks cables -
not particularly damaging to anyone, but incredibly illuminating to everyone.

Re:Well good to know

[Mex]

You're pretty ignorant about this.

Anyone can access Stratfor's content for about 100 dollars per year. And if you just subscribe to their newsletter (no money required) they send free "intelligence" reports every few days.

It's not like only companies can receive their information, any global citizen can educate themselves if they choose to, have "First mover" advantage.

Their analysis are usually very informative, no bias (unlike "free" news), and from my limited understanding, they tend to get a lot of their information and predictions right.

It's like hacking Slashdot for offering a subscription option or something. I don't agree with this move by Anon.

Re:Well good to know

[AmiMoJo]

I'm guessing the 200GBs that Anonymous has will end up being like the wikileaks cables -
not particularly damaging to anyone, but incredibly illuminating to everyone.

We seem to hold private companies to higher standards than the government thought, which I admit is rather odd. For example the Wikileaks cables, as you say, didn't result in much but the revelation that the News of the World hacked people's phones, including the phones of murdered school girls, was enough to get them shut down.

Re:Well good to know

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is the further down the pay grades you get the less choice the people have about taking that job. It isn't hard to imagine a recently made redundant secretary with bills to pay taking the job just to survive.

Re:Well good to know

[Ihmhi]

No, you fool! Don't give them ideas!

And so, James Truetype fell into a vat of TOXIC NEWSPAPER INK only to emerge as a horrible supervillian - THE SERIF!

SERIF: You'll never stop me Batman, it's too late! The story about you wearing ankle socks is already in the morning edition!

BATMAN: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Re:Well good to know

[joocemann]

What about my post contradicts itself? Im not the douche throwing maybes around like a madman trying to be part of it. Im telling you what you re doing and thats it.

Like i said, speak from fact or shut up. And reread my previous post for why.

Re:Well good to know

[b4dc0d3r]

I think the argument is perfectly valid. There are large numbers of people who believe that abortions should not happen, and very passionately. I disagree, but when you have that many people against an idea and willing to take extreme action hoping to prevent it, there is something to it.

After all, the idea of what is evil differs between cultures, and therefore fairly relative. In a country made of immigrants from different nations, like the USA, you will have different subpopulations with different ideas of what is right.

That doesn't necessarily make someone automatically evil to the entire population, but to a significant portion you certainly can be. The conclusion is essentially the same. If you're doing something to piss enough people off, something isn't right. We have the #occupy protests, which pit the 99% against the 1%. Most of the 1% got there just by engaging in capitalism, or being born to someone who did. They got money that people legitimately wanted to part with, in trade for something the people wanted. In the eyes of the government and economy, they are acting as expected and therefore should not be considered evil by anyone voluntarily living in the economy.

The difficulty is that owner versus worker salary is disproportionate, and company profits are recovering while the worker shares are stagnant. By acting as expected, the 1% are pretty much by definition not evil. But by consolodating the wealth of the 99%, offshoring jobs, layoffs and consolidation of the workload, a large number of people see them as being evil. They are at the same time evil and not evil, but a large number of people have an axe to grind.

The mob is angry, and they have a point. That doesn't make them right, the mob are evil to someone else, who is just trying to make a living according to the rules. And as long as we have disparity from a source other than personal choice alone, people will remain on opposing sides, and be evil to each other

Re:Well good to know

[Shark]

I don't OK the use of illegal force. I say that people using illegal force on you is a possibility that one has to factor in when one evaluates a course of action. If you make a conscious choice, are you prepared to potentially put yourself in the path of someone's righteous crusade against 'evil', regardless of how misguided or stupid that crusade is? I'm saying that this sort of risk has to be factored in, I'm not condoning the misguided attack.

Unless you have some sort of magic 'shield of reason and intelligence' that makes everyone you come across sane, moral and in complete agreement with whatever you are doing, you have to factor in the possibility that some people might get very angry with you for something that you otherwise consider fine and dandy.

Re:Well good to know

[Raenex]

Like i said, speak from fact or shut up.

Still waiting for you to speak from fact. What, exactly, was Stratfor "evil" for? All that we've heard are that "Anonymous" hacked them and that they are a "corporation". The way justice is supposed to work is that the accused are given evidence against them. Anything else is akin to an old-fashioned lynching.

Re:Well good to know

[joocemann]

I didnt say i had an opposing view from fact. i opposed your views because they lack facts and play the ever so annoying maybe game.

In short, i have followed the advice i gave to you.

Re:Well good to know

[Raenex]

You're completely ignoring the idea of justice -- the accused should be presented with evidence against them by the accusers. That's all that is being said. Instead of providing such evidence, you say "speak from facts". That's your job or the accusers.

In short, speak from facts and follow your own advice. You'd want the same if some angry mob was acting against you.

Re:Magical Knee Grow

[Dexter Herbivore]

Just like a billygoat crossing a bridge with snoring coming from underneath... don't stop to feed the trolls.

For profit intel

[koan]

200 GB of data moving off their network didn't attract attention? I guess Global Intelligence in this case is an oxymoron.
So it's a for profit Intel company that feeds other corps so that they can better plan their financial moves around World issues, along with "other things".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman

Full Client list: http://pastebin.com/8MtFze0s over 20k hits

Some clients:
AEG Partners LLC
FOX news
AIG Financial Products
American Airlines
American Express
Blackwater Security Consulting
Wells Fargo Investments

Yawn.

Re:For profit intel

[helix2301]

It was 200 gig of email that's the scary part who's email box did they get. I would be more worried about the email then the client list. CONFIDENTAL emails can do some major damage if leaked.

Re:For profit intel

[sjames]

It's all part of the belief the corporate world has that they can be something by saying they are. No need to actually be green, socially responsible, friendly, high quality, fair and balanced, or whatever. Just crow about it endlessly in commercials and brochures.

Re:For profit intel

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep. And the scary thing is that at least in some cases, they apparently believe their own propaganda. When "Look how X we are" is just a cynical bid for profits, it's scummy but understandable. When the corporate culture is so warped and so insulated from reality that they actually think they're X when in fact they're almost the definition of !X, it's kind of terrifying.

But that's okay. The invisible hand of the free market will come along to weed out such inefficiencies and reward the rational actors. Aaaaany day now.

Re:For profit intel

[sjames]

Since the invisible hand of the market was long ago bound, gagged, and tossed in the cellar, the invisible hand of social correction is starting to give it a go. Sgt. Pepper and the blue knights of the 1% are doing their best to crush it's fingers.

Re:For profit intel

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Nice extension of the metaphor! And depressingly accurate.

Re:For profit intel

[sjames]

Speaking of mental disorders, you realize your reply has no connection to anything I actually wrote don't you?

Re:For profit intel

[pntkl]

Corporate America abhors the conscientious objector. Feels like a disparate amount of anarchy, all the way around.

Re:Go!

[koan]

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

Re:Magical Knee Grow OT

[Dexter Herbivore]

Same back to you, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa, Oi Saturnalia, and enjoy your neo-pagan festival.

Looks Like They Learned A Lesson...

[Anonymous Coward]

Namely, stop fucking with people who aren't afraid to track you down and kill you over 'lulz'. :)

Re:Go!

[pla]

It's _FULLY_ possible for them you shut _ALL_ of you up, kill _ALL_ of you, if they wanted.

You realize, of course, that anyone even halfway sane would conduct such attacks from a public WiFi hotspot, right? Track all you want, but somehow I doubt Starbucks has secretly masterminded a global online movement against government and corporate secrecy.


Want to prove me wrong? Want to prove how "powerful" you really are? Come after me then.

Why would anyone bother? You count as just another nobody. Anonymous doesn't go after nobodies, it goes after the worst "legal" scum it can find. Governments, banks, now PACs - You wonder why people cheer Anon on? Because they do the "right" thing while the rest of us sit on our asses complaining about the gradual erosion of our privacy and rights.

Re:Go!

[SuricouRaven]

Anonymous did quite well against the Church of Scientology. Their direct attacks didn't do anything - a week without websites and intermittent email inconvenienced the CoS, no more - but the publicity around it left what reputation the church had in ruin. No longer are they just an obscure cult most people have barely heard of - after the Anonymous-ran campaign on social media, everyone knows to avoid them, and they even got the criticisms mentioned on TV news. Thanks to the PR campaign, the CoS has a harder time recruiting people now.

Most Anonymous operations are a bit of a letdown, but every now and then they can pull it off.

Re:Go!

[Anonymous Coward]

They almost tried that, then they wised up and decided it's better to attack people who don't fight back.

Poetry versus reality

[Anonymous Coward]

We are Anonymous. It is not possible to shut us up or kill us all. If you cut a head off, two more will grow back.

That's quite poetic. However in reality *you* are quite fond of *your* head and will cry, beg, turn over the names of others, share everything you know and will help setup stings to discover others when really bad guys lay their physical hands on you.

Don't underestimate your enemy. Don't overestimate yourself.

Re:Poetry versus reality

[koan]

Leave Adrian Lamo out of this *chortle*

Re:Go!

[Zero__Kelvin]

Nope. The problem is it isn't just one word he seeks. He's looking for "Hypocritical and stupid".

Re:Go!

[Animats]

but the publicity around it left what reputation the church had in ruin. No longer are they just an obscure cult most people have barely heard of - after the Anonymous-ran campaign on social media, everyone knows to avoid them, and they even got the criticisms mentioned on TV news.

Huh? Scientology has been "exposed" many times. Whatever "anonymous" did was barely noticed.

Re:Go!

[gmack]

What a load of crap. Judging by by your post you have no idea whatsoever who or what Stratfor is.

Strafror is a private intelligence company that not only reports on the news, they analyze it for possibly outcomes and consequences. I find them far more insightful than regular news sources and what really gets my respect is that they give a quarterly review of any predictions they made and how many of them came true or were completely off base. About the only thing they have to do with the US political system is their tendency to print information that is inconvenient for the US government and it's allies.

  This whole move by Anon will have exactly two consequences:
1 They shut down an important news source while it is needed the most.
2 They will screw over a bunch of charities who will now be hit with charge-back fees. I know that the credit card companies issued a "non denial denial" and said that it was up to the individual banks on whether their contracts contain a clause charging the recipient transactions but how many banks will actually not charge the fee? I don't know of any and I work in the CC processing industry. Hint: the bank is never out any money during a fraudulent transaction.

Re:Go!

[RMingin]

"Want to prove me wrong? Want to prove how "powerful" you really are? Come after me then. I can deal with a few little bitch-ass kids, especially when the worst they're ever going to threaten me is to have a few pizza's sent to my house. Hey, no problem. I can actually afford a pizza, unlike you shitdicks harvesting BitCoin in your basement hoping to get some cheap weed."

Posted anonymously. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Re:Go!

[RMingin]

"Bring on a war" - Posted anonymously. Grow a UID.

Re:Go!

[Baloroth]

Yes, but Starbucks is also likely to record MAC addresses and computer names. Spoofable, but only if you know what you're doing (the 12-year-old script kiddies who mostly make up Anon probably don't). Might even have video survellience, and if they don't there are probably neighboring stores or traffic cams nearby which may or may not have seen your face/ license plate.

Anonymous goes after whomever the hell they feel like. That is the point. And we just had a story a few days ago about how the crowd is often completely wrong. Anonymous is a mob: anything can get an idea in their heads, and they will pursue it, right or wrong, till someone ends up paying. And fuck all whether they are guilty or not. Anon lost any high-horse credibility when they started calling it "LulzXmas." Not that they had any before IMO. They do it because it's fun. Also, because most of them are losers who have nothing better to do than lash out at the society that they pretend to reject, but really has rejected them (and they are rejected because they hang out at sites like 4chan, and think "forever alone" is the peak of comedy).

Honeypot?

[Anonymous Coward]

A security think tank conveniently leaves a treasure trove of information completely un-encrypted and don't notice the huge transfers of data from their servers. Any chance that it might be a trap?

Re:Honeypot?

[Issarlk]

Only in movies. Don't underestimate stupidity and carelessness.

Re:Go!

[koan]

You sound worried, why don't you shut off your computer and go enjoy the holidays.

Re:Go!

[pla]

Judging by by your post you have no idea whatsoever who or what Stratfor is.

If you want to rob a bank, usually the easiest approach doesn't involve a cutting torch and many hours of hard work.

Re:Go!

[gmack]

You think the bank will be out any money for this? The only people who will actually be out of money will be the charities since they are now on the hook for the stolen amount plus the charge-back fees.

Re:Magical Knee Grow OT

[koan]

You forgot Festivus.

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?)

Re:Go!

[westlake]

No longer are they just an obscure cult most people have barely heard of - after the Anonymous-ran campaign on social media, everyone knows to avoid them.

Bull.

Scientology Exposed [May 6, 1991]. [cover art]
The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power [full text and illustration]

The Apostate: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology [Feb 14, 2001]

Anonymous is the a geek's carnival Wheel of Fortune. Each week it gets another spin. More often if the crowd gets bored.

Re:This is where the mods are silly

[Hartree]

Ok mods. I usually ignore it, but how is this getting modded down for "troll"?

Stratfor put out briefs that said pretty much exactly that. Specifically that Anonymous was playing with fire with going against the Mexcian cartels and were not a significant threat to them. Also, they rated the wikileaks cables as causing embarrasment, but not changing the way that diplomacy is done in the world.

Is there something else? I've seen some speculation, but nobody has really posted anything about what ticked off anonymous. If you know, enlighten us.

Re:Go!

[tigersha]

Agree 100%. What did Stratfor do do deserve the epithet "Evil"? Most of the stupid fuck /. hackers just do som knee-jerk support of anonymous. Stealing the credit cards of the customers of a company is not social activism, it is just criminal. anonymous hackers deserve the same treatment as the terrorists in Afpak. Bring on the drones and hellfire missiles.

The fact that many /. idiots support this crap is blight on /.

Re:Go!

[DurendalMac]

Eh, they didn't really say anything new, but they brought existing exposure further into the limelight. I can at least give them credit for that. People who wouldn't have heard or cared (and might have become victims of that sham in the first place) found out about the dirty dealings of the CoS and stayed away.

They're not a think tank

[gregwbrooks]

Pedantic, I know -- but in the U.S., think tanks are generally not-for-profits set up to do research and advocacy. Stratfor is a for-profit business.

Why?

[tigersha]

What the hell did Stratfor do do deserve this? And why steal the CC's of a people who are interested in good quality analysis of current vents and the news behind the news? What "evil" did they do?

Re:Why?

[Improv]

How do they differ from a political blogger or news-analysis firm? Does Stratfor have an agenda? (Note that I am not saying they don't, but I seriously have never heard of Stratfor pushing one)

There are a fair number of us who do political blogging/analysis as a hobby, sometimes bringing in political philosophy. There are also some fantastic current events journals like Far Eastern Affairs. Is Stratfor more like them or more like the people at the Heritage Foundation (which usually strikes me as pretty sinister)?

I don't know if Anonymous actually did this or not, and Stratfor doesn't seem obviously bad. Need more information!

Re:Why?

[SteeldrivingJon]

Stratfor isn't the kind of intelligence that involves eavesdropping and wiretaps. There's also "open source" intelligence, which is pretty much just anything that is published or broadcast in or about a country of interest. I think Stratfor deals with that, and also likely has direct contacts and sources who can provide information, like any journalistic operation.

A denial: The water muddies:

[Hartree]

And, on the same site the hack info was posted, we have a denial that it was anonymous. Of course, since it's anonymous, there is no way to verify it. And, of course, if you have no membership, how can you say that someone isn't a part of anonymous?

http://pastebin.com/8yrwyNkt

So, someone says yeah we did it. Someone else says no we didn't it was other people.

Pass the popcorn.

Re:A denial: The water muddies:

[flimflammer]

The group of anons denying "Anonymous" involvement is wrong.

This happens a lot when a particular group in the collective does not agree with one of the activities the others are participating in. Lets be realistic here, there is no actual structure. You're in "Anonymous" just by saying you are and participating. Suddenly they're "rogue" segments that don't represent the pretty view the other group has painted for the name "Aonymous." They're all Anonymous. Anyone actually claiming to represent Anonymous as a group is an idiot.

Make no mistake, it was "Anonymous" who did the attack, as relatively useless as it is to actually make that distinction.

Re:A denial: The water muddies:

[Hartree]

That was pretty much my point.

When there is no membership, anyone who calls themselves a member is one (or even anyone who doesn't). Thus anything done without a named claim of responsibility is the work of "anonymous".

Maybe they killed Jimmy Hoffa. There's no way they can convincingly deny it. ;)

Re: Well good to know - Justice v. Retaliation

[pcwhalen]

Justice is to be doled out by a disinterested third party. Proportionality and scope are key in the concept. Angry mobs tend to go overboard on both.

Who gets to say who is right or wrong? In a republic, we all do when we vote for our representatives. We vote when we buy products a la Adam Smith's Invisible Hand economics. We vote when we consume internet media with ads or contribute money to causes.

I don't think Anon is wrong in what it does. There is a place in the world for rebels. Just don't glorify what they do. What they serve is not justice. It is retaliation. And that's mob rule.

The purpose is clear for retaliation: deterrence. The Torah states that punishments should deter wrongdoers in our society ("and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst," Deut. 19:19) Does hacking an organizations mail servers and exposing it's members (who may themselves have done nothing wrong) serve that purpose?

Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." Let the blinding begin.

Re:Gee I had access during a college to Stratfor..

[Rockoon]

the point is that anonymous attempts to break into every site on the internet, and then after they break into a site, they find a way to rationalize their glory seeking as some sort of altruistic attack on "evil."

Good try though!

[Zero__Kelvin]

You evidently accidentally clicked the "Anonymous Coward" checkbox, so alas you have not stood to be counted at all :-(

Re:Gee I had access during a college to Stratfor..

[rduke15]

Stratfor said there were no WMD in Iraq right before we invaded

Well, outside of the US, or at least in Europe, any mainstream media source was basically explaining this. And that Saddam Hussein, while certainly very evil, had no connection with Al Qaida.

So this doesn't say anything about Stratfor. And I still wonder what that Stratfor company is and does, for whom, and why they are considered evil by some.

Re: Well good to know - Justice v. Retaliation

[pcwhalen]

"Who gets to say who is right or wrong? In a republic, we all do when we vote for our representatives."

I didn't sign up for that when I was born. Fuck you. Keep on votin' pansy.

You can vote with your feet too, little man. Pansy here says "Buh-bye."

Re:Cartels

[flimflammer]

What do you honestly expect Anonymous to do to a Mexican drug cartel, honestly? We can call them cowards all we want, but look at it from a reality standpoint. What could they really do? They could release names of supporters and figureheads? Assuming they really did have access to such information (which is highly suspect anyway,) what does that do? It just puts more people in mortal danger as the cartel retaliates and kills people as they've been showing off lately.

They could don their Guy Fawkes masks and...protest. I think that would work out well for them. They could DDOS or hack cartel servers? I'm sure they have them but how would they find this information out and how useful would it be?

It was a stupid target to begin with. Backing down was not only the smartest move they could make, it was the only move they could make. I'm sure their original goal was just an attempt at intimidation to hope for a good result. The result was unfavorable to say the least. That's the end of the story.

Hang on ...

[dbIII]

Isn't a "think tank" just a place to put political workers on retainer between elections with a front of being an academic institution staffed by those that no University would employ?

Seriously they give far better analysis on issues than 99% of "news" websites.

That's not very hard due to the lack of deadlines. The appropriate comparison would be books or papers by experts instead.
The very idea that the same person can be a world class expert on tobacco, nuclear power, coal chemistry, global warming, social security and health insurance should ring alarm bells in the head of everyone with the minimum standard of education.

Re:Hang on ...

[dbIII]

I didn't notice any doctorates in those leading lights there. A self proclaimed expert is not necessarily what they say they are unless other experts agree.

Re:Hang on ...

[SteeldrivingJon]

"The very idea that the same person can be a world class expert on tobacco, nuclear power, coal chemistry, global warming, social security and health insurance should ring alarm bells in the head of everyone with the minimum standard of education."

What makes you think there's only one person involved?

If I run a humanitarian project operating on the border between Thailand and Myanmar, I need current information. I don't have time to wait for "books or papers by experts". I need to know about the recent Burmese military activity likely to send a stream of new refugees in my direction. Maybe that's in the papers, maybe not, so it'd be useful to have an additional source of information like Stratfor.

Simply put, you don't seem to understand what sort of service an outfit like Stratfor provides.

Re:Hang on ...

[RazorSharp]

you don't seem to understand what sort of service an outfit like Stratfor provides

a place to put political workers on retainer between elections with a front of being an academic institution staffed by those that no University would employ

I think he does. Sure, they might churn out some interesting writings, and they may even occasionally be useful, but that doesn't change their raison d'etre.

Your humanitarian project analogy may have been more meaningful before Google existed. Sure, Stratfor predates Google, but not by much. You might as well call a spade a spade. Think tanks exist because there are more political science majors than there are real political jobs. What distinguishes them from lobbyists is that they sometimes pretend to be objective - instead of outright saying 'we want you to vote this way' the think tank says 'our objective research says you should vote this way.' The latter sounds like a more convincing argument if you really believe the 'objective' part. They churn out statistics and reports, but the people who fund the think tanks more often than not want those statistics and reports to reflect a certain worldview.

Re:Hang on ...

[SteeldrivingJon]

"Your humanitarian project analogy may have been more meaningful before Google existed. " The information needed probably isn't *on* Google, because it isn't on any webpages, because in the example it's freaking Myanmar. It'd be transmitted by phone or text, not news websites.

Re:Hang on ...

[gmack]

The first thing you need to know is that many of those Google hits will use Stratfor in their source. Reuters, NYT etc all have Stratfor accounts and those stories tend to reduce the Stratfor work to a bunch of facts without the analysis of possible outcomes but at any rate they will be slower than Stratfor.

The second thing you need to know is that unlike most think tanks, Stratfor publishes a quarterly and yearly rundown of their predictions rating them as true/partially true/not true/yet to be seen etc.

Re:Hang on ...

[dbIII]

Which of course makes it difficult for a recent political science graduate who doesn't read the language to find it so they will just make things up.
If you want something specific you'd go to somebody that's written peer reviewed papers on the subject instead of just an random collection of people that probably will just use google and pretend they didn't.
A "think tank" like the above with no background in the subject is the last place you would go to unless you have a already specific finding you want them to publish so that you can pretend it is coming from an independant source. They are a waste of space even if they are not a waste of talent.

Re:Hang on ...

[dbIII]

Rarely more than one person with a respectable name so that name goes on the reports - hence one guy appears from the outside to be an expert on everything. Those places never prove anything they proclaim, it's just a black box with an answer you are supposed to trust that is typically from people that had never heard of the subject matter before the question was asked. These things could only proliforate in a place where Donald Rumsfeld is seen as an erudite intellectual. It's fake plastic academia that will print a report with whatever conclusion the client orders.

Re:Hang on ...

[SteeldrivingJon]

"Which of course makes it difficult for a recent political science graduate who doesn't read the language to find it so they will just make things up."

Or maybe they have contacts in the region with whom they communicate directly.

You're showing even more ignorance than you are accusing Stratfor of having.

Re:Hang on ...

[dbIII]

Or maybe they have contacts in the region with whom they communicate directly.

You are vastly overestimating the scale and competence of these organisations, and then oddly accusing me of ignorance.

Re:Hang on ...

[dbIII]

Give up on the Tom Clancy dream that somebody can be an instant untrained and uneducated expert with no experience before handing out the basement thing. You have to have at least some idea of where to start before you even know where to find contacts - thus a very small group with very little in the way of experienced staff cannot cover much at all. If you compared them to a University department almost anywhere on earth they would come up short yet they pretend to cover a lot - remember it's people with an coursework bachelor's degree in political science with no postgraduate research, very little work experience and no peer reviewed publications putting themselves up as world class experts in physical sciences that they've barely heard of.
So a couple of them have written books, so can fiction writers. Unless somebody else in a field that these guys pretend to be experts in can vouch for them it has to be assumed that they are not experts, after all, that's what the real experts have to put up with.

Re:Did anyone see the hacked site?

[DrGamez]

So what you're saying is we should..... OCCUPY ANONYMOUS

Re:Did anyone see the hacked site?

[coastwalker]

this is the first time that I have seen Anonemous do something that wasnt being orchestrated by creative level headed people (Scientology campaign) or was obviously a bunch of script kiddies being given access to a popgun and a big bad wolf to go and beat on because it was funny (with denial of service attacks). This was according to the story a theft of 200Gb of data from a security news aggregator. Who the hell cares exscept for most sane and rational people who will conclude that anonemous ought to be locked up and kept on bread and water for a long time, possibly forever. This looks far more like a play to permanantly discredit the concept of anonemous. Personally I am surprised it took this long for someone that anonemous have pissed off to take the opportunity to destroy them convincingly because its a piece of cake. All it would take is to hire some criminal hackers to do something thoroughly unpleasant and pointless - if this carries on for a week I think the job will be done.

Why did they target Stratfor?

[NicBenjamin]

I am just not getting the logic of this attack. Theoretically they're doing it as part of the Free Bradley Manning campaign. But who, that can actually help Bradley Manning gives a fuck about Stratfor?

Stratfor is what you use if you don't have a lot of resources. If you're some guy who follows foreign affairs a Stratfor subscription is great. If you're an Army Officer, who can call up a very experienced intelligence analyst at division HQ (he's called the G1), read every State Department memo ever written, etc. it's just not that useful. It could conceivably be useful as a check against groupthink (IIRC they were quite a bit more skeptical of Chalabi then Dubya was, for example), but that's about it.

Manning, OTOH, is a Private who is charged with giving away information that could potentially endanger US Troops. This includes disobeying orders. There are no US Army Officers anywhere who think helping out a possible check on groupthink is worth relaxing discipline. It's just not gonna happen.

Re:Why did they target Stratfor?

[SteeldrivingJon]

"But who, that can actually help Bradley Manning gives a fuck about Stratfor?"

There probably *are* people at the Pentagon who are customers of Stratfor, who could help Manning. Maybe they're civilians who started subscribing before coming to the Pentagon. Maybe it's someone with access to government intel who considers it a useful additional news source like their Washington Post subscription.

But as far as helping Manning... I can't see this being any more helpful than dropping a bag of flaming poop on the Secretary of Defense's front porch.

Re:Go!

[Anonymous Coward]

anonymous hackers deserve the same treatment as the terrorists in Afpak. Bring on the drones and hellfire missiles.

Way to go on the proportionate response there. I can tell you are a fair, just and rational person.

Sieg Heil, Heil Hitler.

Anonymous is censoring now?

[SteeldrivingJon]

Stratfor is an information company. They provide information. Remember the huge, violent protests in Bangkok a while back? If hard drive companies, or companies reliant on hard drives, wanted to know the possible repercussions of those protests, they would probably turn to a company like Stratfor, Jane's, or the Economist, for analysis by experts. "Would the current government fall? Would the military take over again? How likely is it that our factories and supply lines would be effected?"

That's all Stratfor does. They provide information and analysis. What their clients *do* with that information is the clients' responsibility.

Anonymous is basically trying to silence an information source.

Re:Go!

[Walkingshark]

Well, to be honest Stratfor is pretty neocon/right wing and their coverage tends to more often than not somehow support warmongers with their narrative voice.

Re:Gee I had access during a college to Stratfor..

[SteeldrivingJon]

"And I still wonder what that Stratfor company is and does, for whom, and why they are considered evil by some."

You have an absurdly low standard of evidence for giving credence to allegations of evil.

"Oh, they're probably evil"
"Says who?"
"I dunno, they didn't identify themselves"
"So what did they do that is so evil?"
"I dunno, they didn't say"

That's moronic.

Re: Well good to know - Justice v. Retaliation

[SteeldrivingJon]

"What they serve is not justice. It is retaliation. And that's mob rule."

It's not retaliation if there's nothing being retaliated against.
Apparently one of the companies mentioned in the release is Doctors without Borders. I suppose a charity that provides medical care in war-torn regions and disaster areas finds it useful to have access to information and analysis of political and military situations in the regions where they are active.
What, exactly, is Stratfor supposed to have done that merits retaliation, if their service is useful to a group that does heroic work for people in the worst possible situations?

What Stratfor is and what it's useful for

[raslebe]

Stratfor (short for Strategic Forecasting) is not some secret, exclusive operation. Anybody can subscribe to them. You can even get free reports via email. They offer analysis on issues that are global in scope - security, energy, economics, politics, whatever. And, oh yeah, they actually admit it when they get an analysis wrong or didn't see something coming. I've been a subscriber to the service for several years now. I don't work for an energy company or a multinational corporation. I am an individual who wishes to get rational, pragmatic insights on issues that concern me - and I want minimal bullshit in my insights. IMO, I think these guys do a reasonable job - way better than FOX, CNN, or the standard networks. During the Iraq war, when all the major networks were cheerleading, these guys were trying to determine what may have been motivating that sequence of events; speculating about potential ways the war would be carried out; counter-strategies from Iraq; impacts of the war on the regional and global balance of power. They're not liberal, they're not conservative, they're not libertarian. They are essentially a private intelligence service. The point of this rant is that Stratfor does good work. I subscribe to them because they try to provide an informed, dispassionate perspective that is currently absent from the mainstream news networks. And it pisses me off that some jackasses would hack them.

Re:Did anyone see the hacked site?

[SteeldrivingJon]

"In Anonymous I see a bunch of greedy, spoiled, whining kids."

You forgot "ignorant".

Re:ENGLISH

[SteeldrivingJon]

"at least they are not wasting time attacking international charities"

One of the Stratfor customers in the released info was Doctors Without Borders, an international charity.

Re:Go!

[godel_56]

Agree 100%. What did Stratfor do do deserve the epithet "Evil"? Most of the stupid fuck /. hackers just do som knee-jerk support of anonymous. Stealing the credit cards of the customers of a company is not social activism, it is just criminal. anonymous hackers deserve the same treatment as the terrorists in Afpak.

Well, they certainly deserve some degree of opprobrium for keeping credit card details unencrypted on their web-facing systems. My knowledge is fairly low end, but I even knew that was a stupid idea years ago.

Apparently Stratfor's job is to read the news papers and extract information. Didn't they happen to catch up on the many successful hacking attempts and data breaches in the past year?

I'm personally happy for Anonymous to keep doing this until the large corporates start to wise up

Re:Did anyone see the hacked site?

[RazorSharp]

Fuck the system man, it's keeping us down. It's making us BUY all of this shit. Cry me a fucking river.

I'm pretty pissed off about living in a 'first world country' that makes me BUY health care and education . . . First world for whom? You were joking but the system is keeping more people down than it's helping out.

There are a bunch of corrupt assholes at the top of the food chain, but tell me how that is any different from any other point in history. It isn't.

The income disparity between the upper and lower class is approaching that of Pre-Revolution France.

It takes more effort to keep things going, than it does to get in the way and fuck things up.

If 'keep things going' means continuing to allow the income disparity to grow, continuing to watch an entire generation waste away into idleness, and continue working ridiculously long work weeks so the privileged few can enjoy the fruits of our labors; then perhaps it's best to just fuck things up. Topple the structure and those on top have the furthest to fall. Those on the bottom have nothing to lose. . .it can't get much worse for them.

Re:Go!

[AHuxley]

Bill O'Really likes spread out their info during interviews/talking points ... usually to help hype a new war or keep up interest in an old war :)

Re:Go!

[Dan541]

You count as just another nobody. Anonymous doesn't go after nobodies, it goes after the worst "legal" scum it can find. Governments, banks, now PACs -

Anonymous came after me with their precious Havij.
I must be more high and mighty than I thought.

Re:Go!

[gmack]

Don't mistake their reporting that "x country/organization is doing bad things" with a suggestion that a war on them a good idea. More often than not a war will only make things worse and if the US government had listened to Stratfor's predictions they would not have invaded either Iraq or Afganistan.

stratfor is probably pro-Manning actually

[decora]

there are two very interesting stratfor articles that bear direct relation on his case, one from circa 2001, one from circa 2010, both pointing out the laughable nature of our 'classification' system, and the way it breeds bureaucracy and political infighting, rather than security. when everything can be classified, even innocuous memos, then the whole point of classification loses its meaning in the first place. instead of becoming about security of critical information, it becomes about power brokers exploiting their security clearances to one-up each other and keep people out of loops.

i forget the names of the articles but if you google them you can find them.

His point is neither do you

[Sycraft-fu]

You seem to have this idea that "Some of their customers are people I don't like, so that makes them evil." His point is "Some of their customers are very altruistic organizations so try again."

You are doing what many on Slashdot have done and automatically assuming Stratfor is evil. This is in part because you are probably a general anti-corporate type but also because you falsely seem to assume that Anon are a bunch of really great guys that do nothing but good. So you decided that Stratfor HAD to be evil, and now are trying to justify it.

Re:His point is neither do you

[ahabswhale]

Actually, I don't use Anon as a source of information with which to form my opinions about anything. At best, they may draw my attention to an organization that I'm not familiar with but I'll make my own judgements about whether they deserve the attacks Anon makes against them.

I have no idea whether Stratfor is evil. I was merely countering a previous claim that painted them out like they aren't evil when nobody seems to know much about them. I like to follow the money and people paying millions of dollars for info aren't doing it find out how often the president of Iran is taking a shit. Given that, Stratfor is probably evil but I have no real evidence to back it up. However, Anon probably does since they just stole all of their data so maybe it would be good to ask them.

Re:His point is neither do you

[Hartree]

"Given that, Stratfor is probably evil but I have no real evidence to back it up."

So, you're admitting you're assuming the conclusion with no real evidence of it and largely ignoring any countering evidence?

I think you just described the mechanisms of religious faith surprisingly well.

Re:His point is neither do you

[ahabswhale]

People of religious faith make statements as if they are fact, whereas, I simply state they are "probably" evil. Also, there is no counter evidence -- only supposition.

Stratfor internal memo:

[incubbus13]

Note to self: change password from potrzebie

Re:Go!

[tigersha]

Stealing a million bucks is not the same as stealing grandma's purse, you know?

You know that a single serious Windows virus ca cause BILLIONS of dollars in economic losses?
Why is that different from a major terrorist strike? Why is the response disproportionate?

For some reason when someone bombs something they are criminals but if a hackers does this he is a Robin Hood.

Kill Them

Re:Go!

[sound vision]

It could be possible to track someone who's used Starbucks public wi-fi. Starbucks is going to know who was in their store at a specific date and time. They'll most likely have you on video surveillance. Say there were three people with their laptops on Starbucks wi-fi at the time the attack happened. It shouldn't be difficult to determine which one is the likely member of Anonymous through basic detective work. Or, you could set up surveillance on all three of them, and wait until the right one lets it slip that he did the attack, or is associated with Anonymous. This might seem like a lot of work to go through to catch the guy, these methods may even be illegal. But remember, this is the military-industrial-corporate-thinktank-government complex (aka BIG MONEY) we're talking about here. And, with the stolen CCs, theres going to be quite a few people who lost BIG MONEY in this. I wouldn't discount the lengths they'd be willing to go to get this guy. Some of these bigshots they pissed off may be able to pull strings at Starbucks to get the video surveillance tapes, maybe even data from Starbucks network itself (MAC addresses and more), if such data is logged. Or, they could just do their own dirty deeds and take it illegally from Starbucks. Some of the people pissed off in this incident may not give a fuck, like the Zetas. Maybe they don't even care to be sure they have the right guy - they're going to get him whacked, or plant kiddie porn on his computer, regardless.

Point missed

[dbIII]

These places pretend to sell "experts" on anything you want at the moment - lacking anyone in the field you are after some recent graduate or interning undergraduate in something completely different will give it a go. That's fair enough if somebody with an actual clue is backing it up, but these places are far too small for that.
The odds are whatever you get will be wildly out of context or even completely made up. You just cannot trust anybody if you have nothing but their own word to tell you how good they are.

Re:Point missed

[SteeldrivingJon]

"These places pretend to sell "experts" on anything you want at the moment"

And you know this based on?

Have you ever even seen Stratfor's work product?

Re:Point missed

[dbIII]

That would be a secret wouldn't it? They keep their client list secret and hint at big clients as a tactic so that nobody can call them out as liars when they don't actually supply anything of note to those clients. It's amazing how much self promotional noise can come out of such a small company.
Do you really think they are as well resourced as a newspaper in a medium sized city? If you do, what makes you think they are - backtrack through the PR you've heard about them and separate out verifiable facts.
This is part of an entire industry built on bullshit.

Re:Go!

[budgenator]

That's what Bernie thought, "There will always be two more suckers to bring in" but alas there wasn't and Bernie is now in prison because the blue smoke and mirrors just evaporated when exposed to the light of day.

Re:Go!

[That_Dan_Guy]

Really? Have you ever read any of the reports where they ripped Bush and Rumsfeld for even invading Iraq, let alone the total incompetence the Bush administration exhibited during the war? They tore Rumsfeld to shreds nonstop until he finally left, and then some more.

The fact is Stratfor gets accused of being Liberal Pansies, Neo-Con conservatives and everything in between constantly by people who have political axes to grind and are uninterested in understanding how International Relations works and has worked throughout history. When in reality Stratfor simply sticks to the geopolitical theory termed "Realism Theory" (look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations_theory). If you like, you can review all the IR theories on Wikipidia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory. But in the end they you'll find they are simply subsets of Realism.

Re:Anonymous are hypocrites

[tenco]

instead posting tired, lame anarchist diatribes predicting the downfall of Capitalism.

This is just a copy&paste of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coming_Insurrection

Which is more related to France than the US.

Re:Go!

[tigersha]

So if you walk past a shop and see that the shop-owner forgot to lock the door he deserves (and his customers) deserve to have their personal details stolen from his files then? There are other ways to handle this, like give him a friendly advice and point out that this might be a problem.

Re:Go!

[tigersha]

SO nuke Bill O'Really then, not the customers of his news source.

Accountability and Anonomity

[tokencode]

If you cannot be identified, you cannot be held accountable. Accountability works both ways in that supporters or detractors can understand what to hold them responsible for. Obviously support for this action was far from an overwhemling majority and unfortnately when you operate under the premise of collection conciousness, you tend to include a lot of stupid people. If "anonymous" want's any sense of ligeitmacy, people need to be able to decern what actions were taken by the group and which ones were not. If this is not possible, anonymous is everyone and will be held responsible for all those who act like a pissed off bunch of 12 year olds lashing out hat everything they disagree with.

Re:Go!

[hutsell]

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

by AC: The word you are looking for is "private". To assume anything else would be foolish.

by Zero__Kelvin: Nope. The problem is it isn't just one word he seeks. He's looking for "Hypocritical and stupid".

by AC: Well there is one fool standing up to be counted, a zero indeed. Any others?

Although aware of the replies's mix of woosh and sarcasm, the (most likely) intentionally missing term for the original parent quoted was: Ironic.

Re:Go!

[neonKow]

You know that not every hacking incident is on the same scale as a serious Windows virus? Billions of dollars is also non-equivalent to lives lost and creating (or trying to creating) a sense of constant fear for your own safety that occurs due to a violent terrorist attack. If you think they're the same, then you have never had to fear for your life.

Re:Go!

[neonKow]

The problem is that people have warned companies repeatedly that this is no way to treat OTHER PEOPLE's sensitive information, but nothing besides bad press seems to get them off their asses. No, Anonymous obvioiusly did not use a legal and guilt-free way to do it, but friendly advice has proven ineffective.

Barring the threat of extremely high fines or other strong repercussions for keeping our credit card information, these high-profile hacking events might end up being the most effective impetus for people to get their act together. Some companies and government agencies have actually taken computer security seriously, but not many. As a victim of both my passwords and SSN compromised by trivial hacking attempts, I do blame the organizations who held my information without securing it properly.

Re:Go!

[Man On Pink Corner]

Starbucks is going to know who was in their store at a specific date and time.

Do they know who was sitting in an SUV two miles away with the funny-looking camper shell on top -- the one that doesn't look quite big enough to sleep in, but is plenty big enough for a 12-element 2.4 GHz Yagi?

Re: Well good to know - Justice v. Retaliation

[neonKow]

Wait. I bet Doctors without Borders uses Windows too! Microsoft must be a saint!

Re:Go!

[sumdumass]

You're a nobody. Why would any serious "Anonymous" user go after you? They already compromised a legit target who went after them, Aaron Barr and HBGary.

This is a bit like I could lift that car over my head, but I see no reason to do it so you will just have to trust me when I say I can do it.

I agree that the best use of resources would probably be ignoring this person, but seriously, answering a challenge with "your not worth it" casts more doubt then confidence in the abilities to complete the challenge.

I also agree with the AC, if the ISPs log as much data as I do at several sites I admin, then catching any anonymous player would be a simple matter of access to the logs and the right datamining of the information contained within. So maybe the correct response might be that it sounds too much like a trap or something..

Re:Go!

[seantide]

I'm personally happy for Anonymous to keep doing this until the large corporates start to wise up

Then you are a criminal minded puke just like them.

This isn't activism or anything like that, its crime, period.

If Anonymous or any other cowardly criminals like them want to do something effectively, they could put their time toward participating in their government. Just because someone does something dumb, incorrect, or even criminal does not justify committing a crime in response.

The Babylon Project was a dream given form:

[Hartree]

"Fifth Circle: "Less possessions, more
  connections!""

No, no. Ambassador G'Kar was Fifth Circle.

He wanted to carve the bones of the Centauri into toy flutes for Narn children and sow their fields with salt.

He calmed down a bit toward the end. Though he did strangle his best friend.

True Type:

[Hartree]

"I am the voice of today, the herald of tomorrow... I am the leaden army that conquers the world. I am TYPE." Frederic William Goudy.

Re:Go!

[Raenex]

This is a bit like I could lift that car over my head, but I see no reason to do it so you will just have to trust me when I say I can do it.

In the case of Aaron Barr and HBGary, it was done -- they were a worthy target and it made the news, in particular the dirty tricks they were scheming up, like going after a reporter.

Now, I seriously doubt that anybody posting on this particular thread is actually a hardcore Anonymous member, but it's besides the point, as the taunting AC was trying to disparage the group as a whole.

I agree that the best use of resources would probably be ignoring this person, but seriously, answering a challenge with "your not worth it" casts more doubt then confidence in the abilities to complete the challenge.

So you agree this guy is a waste of time, and there's already been proof positive that Anonymous has successfully gone after worthy targets, but you think stating the truth here is an admission of inability?

Re:Go!

[Peristaltic]

What a lame, worthless argument. Just because a dumbass like O'Reilly uses their product, you're supporting what happened?

Re:Go!

[Zero__Kelvin]

In order to access my website, your system needs to be running one ;-)

Re:Go!

[nhat11]

Does it justify stealing people's money and information? F-no. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Go!

[Zero__Kelvin]

Only if you don't expect people to be hypocritical and stupid ;-)

(Note / Clarification: I am referring to the original AC post as hypocritical and stupid, as I was before, and not the post from koan)