Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank 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...

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 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 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 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 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.

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."

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 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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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.

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 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

Slashdot Mirror

Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank Stratfor

25 of 356 comments (clear)