Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank Stratfor

obvious joke is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-25 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's a Stratfor?

Re:obvious joke is obvious by FairAndHateful · 2011-12-25 05:15 · Score: 5, Funny

What's a Stratfor?
Making awesome rifts and solos, of course. LINK
Re:obvious joke is obvious by FairAndHateful · 2011-12-25 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

(facepalm) Riffs... They're called riffs... Damnit...
Re:obvious joke is obvious by poity · 2011-12-25 07:38 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:obvious joke is obvious by cyberchondriac · 2011-12-25 08:36 · Score: 2

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.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:obvious joke is obvious by SteeldrivingJon · 2011-12-25 15:24 · Score: 2

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.

--
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA

This is where I worry. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-25 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. by Shark · 2011-12-25 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Mind the frickin' laser...
Re:This is where I worry. by Yvanhoe · 2011-12-25 05:33 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:This is where I worry. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-25 05:35 · Score: 2

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. by causality · 2011-12-25 05:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:This is where I worry. by Hentes · 2011-12-25 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

You don't have to be evil to have an angry mob of trolls want to punish you.
Re:This is where I worry. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-25 05:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by Hartree · 2011-12-25 05:50 · Score: 5, Informative

"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. by khallow · 2011-12-25 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-25 06:18 · Score: 2

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. by Type44Q · 2011-12-25 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

It tends to help...
Re:This is where I worry. by drinkypoo · 2011-12-25 06:35 · Score: 2

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.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:This is where I worry. by Jiro · 2011-12-25 07:07 · Score: 2

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. by SteeldrivingJon · 2011-12-25 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

--
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Re:This is where I worry. by flyingsquid · 2011-12-25 10:26 · Score: 4, Informative

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. by PPH · 2011-12-25 18:09 · Score: 2

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.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Go! by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-25 05:27 · Score: 2

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.. by sstamps · 2011-12-25 05:32 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."

Right, and we've seen the results of that by Sycraft-fu · 2011-12-25 05:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by joocemann · 2011-12-25 08:16 · Score: 2

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....

Well good to know by Sycraft-fu · 2011-12-25 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by TubeSteak · 2011-12-25 06:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Well good to know by Shark · 2011-12-25 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Mind the frickin' laser...
Re:Well good to know by Bob9113 · 2011-12-25 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Well good to know by Sycraft-fu · 2011-12-25 07:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Hartree · 2011-12-25 08:26 · Score: 2

"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 by flyingsquid · 2011-12-25 09:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Raenex · 2011-12-25 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by TubeSteak · 2011-12-25 16:41 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Well good to know by Mex · 2011-12-25 22:03 · Score: 2

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.

For profit intel by koan · 2011-12-25 05:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:For profit intel by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2011-12-25 07:27 · Score: 2

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.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:For profit intel by sjames · 2011-12-25 07:45 · Score: 2

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:Go! by koan · 2011-12-25 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Magical Knee Grow OT by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-25 06:01 · Score: 2

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

Looks Like They Learned A Lesson... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-25 06:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Go! by pla · 2011-12-25 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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! by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-25 06:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Poetry versus reality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-25 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by koan · 2011-12-25 07:54 · Score: 2

Leave Adrian Lamo out of this *chortle*

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Go! by Animats · 2011-12-25 07:07 · Score: 3, Informative

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! by gmack · 2011-12-25 07:14 · Score: 5, Informative

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! by RMingin · 2011-12-25 07:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

"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.

--
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.

Re:Go! by koan · 2011-12-25 07:23 · Score: 2

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

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Go! by pla · 2011-12-25 07:33 · Score: 3

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! by gmack · 2011-12-25 07:38 · Score: 2, Informative

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:The Donations... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-25 07:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:Go! by koan · 2011-12-25 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?)

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Go! by westlake · 2011-12-25 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative

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:The Donations... by poity · 2011-12-25 08:15 · Score: 2

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)

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:This is where the mods are silly by Hartree · 2011-12-25 08:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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! by tigersha · 2011-12-25 08:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 /.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism

Re:Go! by DurendalMac · 2011-12-25 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

A denial: The water muddies: by Hartree · 2011-12-25 09:36 · Score: 3, Informative

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: Well good to know - Justice v. Retaliation by pcwhalen · 2011-12-25 09:45 · Score: 2

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.

--
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.

Re:Honeypot? by Issarlk · 2011-12-25 09:59 · Score: 2

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

Re:Cartels by flimflammer · 2011-12-25 12:31 · Score: 2

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 ... by dbIII · 2011-12-25 12:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Go! by Walkingshark · 2011-12-25 15:38 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.

Re:Go! by godel_56 · 2011-12-25 17:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by RazorSharp · 2011-12-25 17:47 · Score: 2

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.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."

Re:Go! by gmack · 2011-12-25 20:16 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Re:Go! by That_Dan_Guy · 2011-12-26 02:22 · Score: 2

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank Stratfor

69 of 356 comments (clear)