Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank Stratfor

Posted by samzenpus on from the looking-behind-the-curtain dept.

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."

11 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Re:obvious joke is obvious by FairAndHateful · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's a Stratfor?

    Making awesome rifts and solos, of course. LINK

  2. Re:obvious joke is obvious by FairAndHateful · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. This is where I worry. by Dexter+Herbivore · · 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.

    1. Re:This is where I worry. by Yvanhoe · · 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.
    2. Re:This is where I worry. by causality · · 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
    3. Re:This is where I worry. by Hartree · · 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.

  4. Well good to know by Sycraft-fu · · 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?

  5. For profit intel by koan · · 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."
  6. Re:Go! by koan · · 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."
  7. Re:Go! by gmack · · 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.

  8. Re:Go! by koan · · 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."