Slashdot Mirror
Is Stratfor a "Joke"?
daveschroeder writes with an opinion piece that seems to differ from the usual thinking on the Wikileaks release of Stratfor emails: "Max Fisher writes in The Atlantic: 'The corporate research firm has branded itself as a CIA-like "global intelligence" firm, but only Julian Assange and some over-paying clients are fooled. [...] The group's reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight. [...] So why do Wikileaks and their hacker source Anonymous seem to consider Stratfor, which appears to do little more than combine banal corporate research with media-style freelance researcher arrangements, to be a cross between CIA and Illuminati? The answer is probably a combination of naivete and desperation.'"
That's a pretty wafer thin opinion piece. Sure, Stratfor seems like a mess, but I think the most telling aspect of this whole fiasco is that we actually believe an intelligence company could be so moronic. That says a lot about the public's perception of government intelligence, or lack thereof, if imbeciles like Stratfor are actually being paid to provide services.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
CIA Damage control 101 -- try to make it look as if the leak wasn't so bad.
Well... with the evidence given FOR the opinion of this writer, yes... Stratfor is a joke.
I mean, I certainly would not write an opinion article where I introduce evidence contrary to my actual opinion. That would mean my opinion is wrong and thus I should change my opinion accordingly.
What do I look like... Religion?
Anonymous is a lose canon with no real insight into global politics? Wow. I'm flabbergasted by such news!
Aside from their victims, I can't think of any party that should take them as more than just a bunch of goofs who're doing it for teh LuLz.
... is what this article is.
... the mindset of the intelligence industry. It shows there is an element of self supported dependencies involved. This is not unlike addicts, such as Alcoholic and durg abuses etc. But on th eup side of thise there are help groups such as AA, OA, MA, SPA etc.. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_twelve-step_groups ) where they have buddy systems because once you are so caught up in an addiction it is difficult to stay objective about getting yourself out of the addiction, hence the buddy system comes into play... better objectivity.
So, perhaps we need such a group for the Intelligence Industry, lets call it IA or better yet lets stay silent about the intelligence part and simply call the help group Anonymous.
Yeah... thats the ticket...
Of course they are going to make a target they can hit seem like the most secure thing ever, with all the information in the world. Its just another case of Anonymous propaganda pushing the idea that what they are doing is actually accomplishing something more than stripping us of our rights. If they didn't have their followers tricked so hard, the people would realize that Anonymous is nothing more than a sophomoric group lashing out like a fat kid at the play ground.
Can we stop writing checks to them with tax payer money?
Work bio at MMWD
Stratfor's a joke, but the powers that be take them seriously. That makes them a serious threat. Wikileaks, exposing this joke, helps to diffuse that threat. This is not complicated.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Say the data was worthless / false / dated / phony / a decoy from the start.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't any and/or all of those things anyway, but still - it does seem that there's a number of folks in power who do take them seriously.
Check your premises.
Wikileaks is exaggerating the importance of Stratfor. It isn't some spy operation, it is just news gathering and analysis. Stratfor is not a private CIA.
The Atlantic article has two links to stories claiming Stratfor is a joke but they are both written by Daniel Drezner. I guess Daniel isn't impressed by Stratfor.
Wikileaks may have some use, but by exposing emails from a bunch of guys who gather and report news for a living I don't think they have saved the world..
Try again Julian.
This reeks of the sort of thing written to undermine the leaked material.
Perhaps this is just a Stratfor tactic to reduce perception of them as threat (i.e. float the masses articles that make them seem ineffectual/harmless)....
I was going through the Stratfor leak to assist in crowdsourcing research on the material. I found predominantly old news, employees sending each other e-mail links of dated internet articles, and dingbattily off-base novice assessments of geopolitical maneuverings and trends. The rest was industry-specific minutae ("How does [situation] affect the [goods] market in [country]?") and a few Excel spreadsheets of personally-identifiable employee and contact data. Stratfor appears to be what happens when someone with more money than brains gets an inflated sense of self-importance and decides it would be cool to run a corporate cloak-and-dagger firm.
Yes Stratfor is a joke. But like most jokes, the problem was that people were willing to take it seriously. Worse, Stratfor's intelligence and comprehension of geopolitics was still light-years ahead of the average U.S. citizen's.
A much better source of intel - though hardly ideal - for the curious would be at Benjamin Fulford's leak site. Each Monday morning new updates arrive that are behind a paywall. They are then repeated for free on various blogs within hours.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
So that's how he was able to link to stories that are years old to dispute the claims? You're attempts to spin this are pathetic. Wikileaks and Anonymous are wrong about these people so just learn to face the facts.
Stratfor guys pop up occasionally on Coast to Coast AM and Alex Jones. At one point Alex Jones was accused of being part of Stratfor. Feel free to draw your own conclusions based on that.
Smells like a continuation of the smear campaign against Wikileaks and Anonymous.
"HAY EVERYONE, WIKILEAKS AND ANONYMOM IS STUPID AN WORTHLESS, LOOK HOW NAIVE AND DESPERATE THEY ARE LOLOLOL! NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO THEM BECAUSE ALL THEIR STUFFS IS POINTLESS GRASPING AT STRAWS!!!11!1one!!"
Seriously, nobody with a brain believes any of the smear campaign against Julian Assange, just like us same people don't believe the ridiculous lies told by government when they try to cover shit up.
Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of the population is as dumb as a bag of hammers, and eat this shit up like it's the only thing they know (which in many cases is probably true).
Smear campaign continues, move along, nothing to see here, us proles can't change anything.
the CIA doesn't see it that way. They take them seriously, nothing funny about that. They get intel from these clowns. Thats a story, rather than that thinly veiled hit piece on Assange and Wikileaks
Of course, some of us regard Stratfor as a joke with no tangible wit or discernible punchline. This does not impede idiots with more money than sense of humor from buying its output. Much the same can be said for The Atlantic, unfortunately...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
From the email Georgy sent out after the release of emails.
"The release of these emails is, however, a direct attack on Stratfor. This is another attempt to silence and intimidate the company, and one we reject. As you can see, emails sent to many people about my resignation were clearly forged.
We do not know what else has been manufactured. Stratfor will not be silenced, and we will continue to publish the geopolitical analysis our friends and subscribers have come to rely on. "
Well possibly they were forged or maybe not.
If you go to their web page allegedly they are giving out all their "information" for free for a limited time, however what I see is nothing new or interesting and quite a bit of poorly written analysis (yes I know my writing sucks as well) after going through several of the articles I started wondering "what's the big deal about Stratfor?"
Decide for yourself:
Top 5 Stratfor Wikileaks Revelations (So Far)
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4833/top-5-stratfor-wikileaks-revelations-so-far
http://www.benzinga.com/news/12/02/2381070/wikileaks-stratfor-e-mails-reveal-an-investment-plot-worthy-of-a-spy-novel
All sources are suspect but you can always get the torrent file with their emails (alleged emails)
http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html
My advice is download them from a wireless cafe not your home IP, not sure what the legality is here and I am staying away from it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That's what spy operations are, though.
Wikileaks is a platform that hosts the leaks they are sent to. Posting them is in no way a political statement of them. From the site:
They don't exaggerate anything, merely state the contents of the leak.
If only they had known in advance, they could have planted tracer data, skitsing data and subvert data in the feed! Better luck next time ...
The purpose of existence is to make money.
That's what spy operations are, though.
A spy operation would imply that a certain amount of deception (or at least extreme covertness) was used to secure information that is considered proprietary to an organization (i.e. they don't publish it on the internet or give it to any one who calls and asks). Was either of these things true about Stratfor?
It's over a year now, dust settled... so was Aaron Barr/HBGary a joke? (from the PoV of services, of course it was... but how come powerful institutions came to use or attempt to use them?)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I see Stratfor calling itself the "Shadow CIA". But is there really any connection to the CIA? From what I've seen they mostly market themselves to private industry, perhaps they have some subscribers in Washington but the connection seems casual at best.
I think the answer is basically just 'yes', regardless of the veracity of any of the claims in the article, regardless of what you may think of their practices or the quality of their product.
If you work in intelligence and you don't encrypt your email, you are a joke.
Would you please rephrase the above with HBGary and Aaron Barr instead?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
If my CEO believes in astrology or that the earth is only 6000 years old, I may think he's crazy. But I still need to know who has his ear.
Have gnu, will travel.
How come every time a story comes out about them, they seem to get a promotion. Now they are a "transparency group".
NOT!
Treason !
Manning was tortured for far less
Who Stratfor Is Selling Intelligence To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6lr5rJihuw&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=3&feature=plcp
Why does Slashdot keep linking to these reactionary troll articles from The Atlantic? God this site blows.
> such as Alcoholic and durg abuses etc. But on th eup side of thise
Kid, lay off the "durgs", they're messing you up badly.
and one who had their information released I feel I can make some credible comments on the quality of Stratfor.
The primary use of Stratfor was background, especially in regions I was not familar or required too much attention to stay on top of. Second was the channelling of event and other information from various open source media, including local/domestic. Third was their analysis. Whether done by themself, others, or some combination, they usually got the broad picture correct and were good at breaking down economic data. However, Stratfor was poor when it came to near and medium term predictions on both economic and political events. Marginally better on military stuff.
I was a general subscriber, nothing 'special' ever requested. For the price, they were worth it. If you timed things properly you could have it annually for less than a sub to the WSJ and again, from an informational gathering standpoint they did a decent job. Perhaps a lot was open source and/or available if you really wanted to look, etc but that is exactly why you are paying a firm like stratfor - to do the searching and collating for you and give some kind of summary. They save time and effort.
posted anonymously for obvious reasons
There is some truth to that, but it does not explain the emotional attitudes surrounding the story. If this is what news agencies do, why was Stratfor singled out as uniquely evil for doing it? Why was Stratfor declared to be evil when Anonymous first attacked them, before the hackers had the chance to read any of the emails? If there is little of interest in the copied emails, why are they supposed to be proof that Stratfor is evil? If hacking into companies to copy their private emails is good, why isn't Anonymous rallying to the defense of Rupert Murdoch's news organizations? If some of Stratfor's news-gathering methods are evil, why isn't Anonymous condemning investigative journalists like Greg Palast who have enough confidential data appear in their laps that they probably do some of the same things?
If Wikileaks and Anonymous are worldwide organizations operating for ideological reasons, why are their attacks (electronic and rhetorical) directed at the United States and organizations they see as pro-American? Why does Wikileaks consistently come to judgements that their evidence does not support, like the "COLLATERAL MURDER" of a journalist in a small group of "unarmed" combatants that had at least one AK-47 and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? Why don't Anonymous and Wikileaks target Russia, Iran, OPEC, the Arab League, Jamaat e-Islami, or the Muslim Brotherhood? There are surely plenty of scandals there to be found and information that the public ought to know.
I originally had "the members of Plan Hermandad Revolucionaria" in that list, but the first link for that on DDG turns out to be Wikileaks Bolivia. Credit is due there, and maybe Wikileaks is investing more than just the US, but why are all the major PR campaigns against the US?
From TFA:
A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year.
I think it costs around $100-200 per year, about the same as the Economist. As a reader of both, and much more, Stratfor is an excellent source of original, well-written analysis that you can't find elsewhere. Certainly calling them a private CIA is an exaggeration (I imagine their budget is a little smaller too), and certainly they have flaws (their obsession with geopolitical analysis, for example), but they are worth reading.
If you have a strong interest in international affairs, try them; currently their services are free:
http://stratfor.com/analysis
http://stratfor.com/situation-report
For example, here is an excellent explanation (now slightly out of date) of the groups resisting Assad in Syria:
http://stratfor.com/analysis/syria-opposition-struggles-gain-foreign-support
There you have it. The comments on here are indicative of how conspiracy theorists think. No evidence will ever be sufficient to dissuade them from what they *believe* to be true.
Maybe the info that got "hacked" was meant to be.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It would appear that LeakyDiks fell for a classic 'honeypot' in downloading the emails.
Uh huh. So Stratfor is such a bunch of ignorant unworthy losers that "Fortune 500 companies and international government agencies" (wikipedia) have funnelled millions of dollars to these people because they are so useless.
TFA is classic right wing spin. And not even very good at it. Like Stratfor.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Conspiracy Theories 101 - any information that conflicts with the conspiracy theory must be ignored and classified as disinformation propagated by the conspirators.
In an intelligence community that swore, on the record, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons to add to his already formidable stockpile of conventional WMD's? That Hussein had operational ties to Bin Laddin?
That's abiout what we have here. One guy, Fisher, has picked up the fact that another guy Drezner, doesn't have a high opinion of Stratfor,, though he has a high opinion of himself and constantly quotes himself in his own articles in Foreign Policy. Based on this one guy's opinion, Drezner, Fisher concludes that EVERYONE thinks Stratfor is "a joke," which is complete hyperbole. And now 100 slashdot posters, the majority of whom have no idea what Stratfor really does and have never been on their web site, get in line to repeat the same thing.
Certainly Stratfor is not as smart as Stratfor thinks Stratfor is. Their analyses are somewhat uneven. Their "Above the Tearline" segments, for example, are a poster child for simplistic thinking. On the other hand, their analysis of the US Navy and its deployments is as close to perfect as you can realistically get--FAR better than something like Debkafile, for example, that routinley invents destroyer fleets plying the waters of the Indian Ocean. They have a lot of short "quickie" articles you could probably get for yourself on the Web, but their in-depth articles are well written, comprehensive, and insightful.
They do have people on the ground all over the world. You can call them journalists instead of analysts if you want, but their coverage is far more insightful than a pool reporter for Fox or CNN. At least these guys have studied their subjects rather than spent their time blow drying their hair.
If you quote Stratfor there is always someone to jump up and down and proclaim them and you worthless, but if you neglect to mention Stratfor is your source, suddenly what you say is considered pure genius.
And they are hardly ruined. Yeah, the script kiddies walked all over them this time. They may have gotten 5 million emails (Really?) but this is no Climategate or Private Manning. And Stratfor will emerge stronger for it.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
i dont know what else to say. these guys coming out of the woodwork claiming wikileaks does nothing important, well, i am wondering why they dont more strongly defend Brad Manning and call for the dropping of Espionage charges against Jonisdottir, Assange, et al.
I've been observing Stratfor - plus several other similar operations - since the late 1990's
I've subscribed (paid subscriptions) to many of them
I do so to gauge the correctness of their so-called "intel reports" as well as learn new and interesting "stuffs" that I'm not aware of
For Startfor, for the subjects that I'm very familiar with, I would say that they are correct about 20-23% of the time
For the subjects that I'm not familiar with, however, I won't be able to comment
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
First of all, "Max Fisher" who writes for The Atlantic's international website, is more of a gossip blogger than a serious journalist. If you look at the list of his stories, you will find that they are either completely trivial, or re-tweets of other peoples' work. Some of his stories look suspiciously like press releases. The European edition of the Atlantic's website has nowhere near the reputation for integrity that the US edition enjoys.
Second, it sounds like a lot of sour grapes or FUD. I want you to read these three paragraphs from the Max Fisher article and see what you think:
So let's see...his source(s) for this story amount to "a friend who works in intelligence" Boy, that's some high-powered journalism right there. He says that Stratfor is considered "a joke" but his only source seems to the the same "friend who works in intelligence". You think that maybe somebody who works "in intelligence" might have a reason to trash Stratfor? Apparently, the people who are shelling out $40,000 for a subscription from Stratfor must think it's not that much of a joke.
Further Mr Fisher complains that the free "report" that he was sent by Stratfor (probably as part of a marketing program) doesn't contain anything but publicly-available information. Well, do you think a company that is in the business of selling $40,000 subscriptions is going to put the good stuff in a free advertisement?
I don't know...there's something that smells about this Max Fisher article. Private intelligence firms are thick on the ground in Europe (as well as America). I wonder if Mr Fisher isn't being used. Based on the other articles he's written for The Atlantic's International web site, it would seem that he's the kind of lazy journalist that would be ripe for such use.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Conspiracy Theories 101 - any information that conflicts with the conspiracy theory must be ignored and classified as disinformation propagated by the conspirators.
That's exactly the main problem with conspiracy theories, which makes them unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
(basically, if there's no way to prove it wrong, there's no way to prove it right either)
Also, enough exposure might make you think _you're_ the crazy one for not wanting to believe their odd ideas.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The thing is, it's not a new phenomenon in intelligence. When Spy Catcher was released, all the controversy was OMG! The head of MI5 might be a Russian agent! But we can't find out because that will open up a can of worms so we'll just keep our head in the sand. But re reading it now, all you get is a sense of "however did they win?". The sense is that sloppy thinking and endless game playing were the norm. Stanislaw Petrov accomplished more in an hour than all of the spies accomplished in their entire careers/lives. Given the way that western agencies treat their "assets", you're left wondering what sane person would volunteer. If it's to defend the "Western way of life", it's not a very good example of it.
Having once subscribed to Stratfor (it was $130 per year at the time), I have to say that I liked their "Year in Review" reports. They would go over their predictions to see what they got right and wrong. It would be nice to see more news/intel/whatever organizations doing the same.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
So there may be real connections, but not something the government paid for. Stuff like that happens all the time. If you are a Big Name(tm) in an industry, people will give you shit for free just so they can say you use their shit. Marketing. Effective too.
The fact that they made a big deal out of it, called a press conference and all that. If they considered this some joke of an org who wasn't really important, they'd just post the stuff as they've done with many, MANY other things. However they are making a big to-do like with the Manning leaks. That is them elevating Stratfor to some special position.
Stratfor is of course a joke, but even more so is Wikileaks. Stratfor is basically marketing hype to separate credulous corporate types from their money that could be easily gleaned from internet sources, the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Asia Times, etc.
Wikileaks is a joke, because it does not take on anyone threatening. No disclosures of Putin's misdeeds, or China's Politburo, or its Leopold of Belgium mini-African empire that is already racking up the bodies in labor camps. Nothing about Al Qaeda, or Pakistan's ISI funding of terrorists against India, or Iran's nuclear program, or Turkey's Islamists, or Egypt's, or Libya's.
Nothing. Wikileaks is completely gutless. It only picks safe targets who don't cut off heads, don't kill people in elevators, don't fly planes into buildings. It tells us what we already know (the US intel community has not a clue) while exposing people who tell us stuff to being killed.
Meanwhile Wikileaks, the organization preaching transparency, won't reveal its donor list, how it spends its money, and what Assange does with the money (live the high life?)
This is why Wikileaks is a joke. A bigger one that Stratfor.
Stratfor and similar companies are basically specialized newspapers, much heavier on analysis than usual, with aggressive marketing departments. I have never been able to understand why Anonymous has such a stiffie for them-- its like Friedman ran over someone's dog, or something.
As for the accuracy, I won't dispute that, because I've found some rather questionable statements in areas I'm familiar with. (Although I will raise an eyebrow at the precision implied-- 23%? Really?) It's not meaningful unless you can compare it to other ratings for other news services.
And finally, I've seen Stratfor make at least grudging motions toward something virtually no other news service ever does-- they'll haul out last year's projections and see where they went wrong and try to explain why. Granted, they don't do a great job at this, but it's a refreshing effort, like when your kid finally learns to say please and thank-you.
LOL
That yes, the CIA probably does read Stratfor. However they read every major news publication. It is part of their intelligence gathering process. They know the news does good intelligence (sometimes at least) and they want to know what the news knows.
Umm... reading newspapers is a lot different than obtaining "financial, sexual or psychological control to the point where he would reveal his sourcing and be tasked." Looks like someone's trying to save face here.
That's what *newspapers* are, too.
(Stratfor brought this on a little bit themselves, though, by billing themselves as a "private intelligence agency." They don't mean like clandestine spy shit, they mean like information gathering and analysis. The irony is, despite their advertising line, they've raked the CIA over the coals for incompetence many times. Wait, that's double irony, given the current situation.)
use of the word "hater" immediately loses the argument.
it shall be known as Mug's law, if that isn't already taken.
My lawyers will be in contact shortly.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It's not meaningful unless you can compare it to other ratings for other news services
For the subjects that I'm very familiar with, I'm afraid that many other news services do not even give any coverage, and when they do, they (and I mean other news services) more than often quote their source from Stratfor, or similar quasi-intel sources
In other words, it's not very likely that I can make any comparison
As for the figure 20% to 23%, it's based on the accuracy on specific facts - date, location, events, person involved, and so on
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
As for the figure 20% to 23%, it's based on the accuracy on specific facts - date, location, events, person involved, and so on
S/he wasn't questioning the basis, but the implied precision. 23%? 23's an awfully specific number, which implies you're not saying "oh about 1 in 5" but are instead saying "they were incorrect on 423 of the 1839 facts I carefully recorded in this log here to track their accuracy rate" . Really? I'm making these numbers up, of course, but by saying "23%" you're implying you do have specific numbers like this that aren't made up, and that when you divide one by the other you get 0.23 when rounded to the nearest hundredth.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Not necessarily. "open source intelligence" (nothing to do with the software type) involves collecting intelligence information from publicly available material.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
A spy operation would imply that a certain amount of deception (or at least extreme covertness) was used to secure information that is considered proprietary to an organization
No it doesn't. The KGB used to count the cars in the Pentagon car park, the NSA/DIA used to listen for encrypted military radio traffic to gauge readiness levels. Everyone knew they did this, and there was only the most cursory attempts to conceal it.
Intelligence gathering is mostly far more prosaic than people assume. The real covert stuff, like using submarines to attach listening devices to Soviet undersea cables, is only a tiny part of what is going on. Mostly it is gathering a whole bunch of "newspaper clippings" and attempting to create an overall impression of what the enemy is up to (and this is why it was easy to "spice up" the Iraq and WMD intel to support an invasion).
And yes this is incredibly dangerous (as Iraq found out) and almost lead to Nuclear War in the 1980's when the Soviets relied on it to figure out if the US was going to pull a first strike.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Yes, yes, stratfor has no information, they're morons, look away, no need to pay attention to them. Don't even bother talking about them or reviewing their documents.
As Verbal says in the Usual Suspects....the greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world that he didn't exist. :)
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
I am amazed about the amount of crap a lot of people are talking. Stratfor is a news agency with a specialist focus on geopolitics and security.
The Sun is a news agency that specializes on the private lives of celebrities. Any other tabloid crap paper same
Stratfor "gathers intelligence" on things like the economic allot of Fukushima and the politics of the EU or Russia.
The Sub "gathers intelligence" on the sex lives of whatever little starlet wants to be in the public today
There is a role to be played by summarizing the news and writing opinion pieces about it. Yes, most of the info is out there, but frankly, it is too much fuss to go and find out all the details. IT like installing a Linux distribution instead of gathering all the packages by hand.
At lead what Stratfor writes about is actually important. It does matter in the long run to my life if the EU dies off because of the Greek Crisis. It does NOT matter anything to me if Angelina Jolie fucked her neighbors cat yesterday.
Stratfor blowing themselves up as a "global intelligence" org is a bit of marketing bluff, I would agree with that, but they do provide a useful service and their commentary is actually rather intelligent. They also tend to be very politically incorrect and have no qualms about stepping on toes. Maybe their output is not useful if you are an actual professional intelligence agent in the CIA, but for a average joe like me who has a more than passing interest in the working of the world they are useful and worth the money.
The fact that Assange and the stupid hacker whack jobs from Anonymous think that they are doing the world a favor by committing "justice" is really a little stupid. Justice is not served by a nameless faceless kangaroo court run by a bunch of pimply teenagers in their mothers basements, which is what anonymous is. Justice is served by public discussions in a court within the rule of law. THAT is main breakthrough of the West, not democracy. RUle of law. And anonymous does not know anything about that. Rule of law has structures,processes and is conducted in the open, by courts and the free press. Stratfor is part of a free press. By destroying their archives Anonymous is not exactly fostering that.
Stratfor has some negative opinion pieces about Assange (claiming that his work has little meaning in the wider world and that he is a self-serving jerk because HE refuses to release secret info about his OWN organization) and that anonymous is a stupid faceless mob rule setup. That is why they got whacked. And they DO have a right to their opinion, whether anonymous likes it or not.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Want to hear a joke? It's called "The New York Times".
Media these days is so slanted that every news piece has an agenda. If you were to rely on the popular media for your news and information, well, you can forget about being well informed. They excel at filtering out information that disagrees with their world view.
At its essence, Stratfor is a news company. They gather 'Intelligence' from the 'field' and put it out there. They tell you what is going on, in a boots-on-the-groud point of view. They provide enough background to give context, the news, and what this could mean to the future of the region - and that's it. They don't do human interest stories. It is not your typical news. That is what Open Source Intelligence is.
So you read through the 'intel' they gather, and unless you have a particular interest in the region, or a business need for the information, it is boring stuff... So?
I know a company that imports guar gum, an ingredient that is used primarily in food products. The primary manufacturers of the product are in Pakistan. They are continually researching what is going on at the local level in Pakistan, not just the stuff that makes the headlines. Stratfor provides that info, as boring as that is. They also monitor situations in the regions their product is transported through, lest there be any supply disruptions. They want to be able to have contingency plans, such as leaning more on a supplier from India, even though the price may be higher, there is less chance of supply disruption, etc.
Were you expecting it to be the stuff that movies are made of?
Give me a break.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Really? They'd be spread pretty thin since their total headcount is well under a hundred of which most would be in the office.
To show how unimportant they are, when the hacking of Stratfor was reported a major bank near me with a couple of hundred thousand employees reported that they had a total of four logins to Stratfor so were not worried about compromised details.
S/he wasn't questioning the basis, but the implied precision. 23%? 23's an awfully specific number, which implies you're not saying "oh about 1 in 5" but are instead saying "they were incorrect on 423 of the 1839 facts I carefully recorded in this log here to track their accuracy rate"
Sure, I can say something like "1 out of 5", I can even say something like "less than 25%", if that makes you happy
But I rather be more precise and quote the figure that I gather from several test cases that I carried out myself
After all, this is Slashdot - and Slashdot supposed to be a place for people who are more to technology (which means more precise number) than to fashion (in which the difference between "C-cup" and "D-cup" does not measure in micrometers)
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
But I rather be more precise and quote the figure that I gather from several test cases that I carried out myself
It's not "more precise" unless we can understand the nature of the "several test cases."
So far you've said you're talking about specific areas with which you're "very familiar" but which are so obscure that newspapers don't cover them at all, therefore it's impossible to compare the coverage, but you've arrived at the very specific figure of 23 percent (but you'll be more vague if we prefer).
Sounds pretty convenient to me. It also sounds like the kind of thing people say after a four-day meth bender. No offense.
Breakfast served all day!
Urgh. This banal thread is why I grow weary of thee, Slashdot.
Most of these posts are jokes. It seems only a few of you have any clue.
The rest just walk around hoping they won't fall over because their brain is so large.
A spy operation would imply that a certain amount of deception (or at least extreme covertness) was used to secure information that is considered proprietary to an organization
No it doesn't. The KGB used to count the cars in the Pentagon car park, the NSA/DIA used to listen for encrypted military radio traffic to gauge readiness levels. Everyone knew they did this, and there was only the most cursory attempts to conceal it.
Intelligence gathering is mostly far more prosaic than people assume. The real covert stuff, like using submarines to attach listening devices to Soviet undersea cables, is only a tiny part of what is going on. Mostly it is gathering a whole bunch of "newspaper clippings" and attempting to create an overall impression of what the enemy is up to (and this is why it was easy to "spice up" the Iraq and WMD intel to support an invasion).
And yes this is incredibly dangerous (as Iraq found out) and almost lead to Nuclear War in the 1980's when the Soviets relied on it to figure out if the US was going to pull a first strike.
Granted there are lots of really simple things that constitute useful intelligence, but was the KGB agent counting cars at the pentagon really wearing a soviet uniform with one of those fur hats, and peering through a pair of commie binoculars? He was no doubt in the US under a false identity, and deceptively "Americanized" so as to not arouse suspicion... This is where i would draw the line for a "spy outfit" especially with regards to the Internet... Unless you are doing something risky, unique, and private, you are really just another data miner.
He says he has independently carried out some tests and thus has arrived at a somewhat specific figure which is what you all wanted to know [why he said 23 and not 25,50,75 or even 10,20,30,...] - so whats the problem?
So why do Wikileaks and their hacker source Anonymous seem to consider Stratfor, which appears to do little more than combine banal corporate research with media-style freelance researcher arrangements, to be a cross between CIA and Illuminati?
What's the term, "controlled opposition?" Wikileaks has long been rumored to be the CIA (Anonymous could be anybody - isn't that the point?) and hearing about their "attack" on Stratfor makes it quite clear why. Open your minds, people! Geez...
Crowd-sourcing/funding this is an interesting idea, but lawsuits would work better as part of a larger strategy that employs many tactics. One part of that strategy is 'disintermediation.'
P2P filesharing as an example of oblique disintermediation. That is, P2P has been designed to share files which has the externality of putting pressure on the RIAA's business model, but not the express purpose of putting them out of business. As part of a strategy to specifically do that while employing your lawsuits on a parallel track it might have shut the music industry down completely by now, instead of permitting them to linger (and malinger).
"Exposure" is another big part of the strategy. Wikileaks's exposure of the diplomatic cables was a very big step in that right direction. But it was not followed up with enough other big revelations or augmented by Disintermediation and your lawsuits running on a parallel track.
We have to push from all angles at once to reach the tipping point beyond which the corrupt status quo is unable to regain equilibrium and adapt.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I am a former Stratfor subscriber. At $99/year it was well worth it (but babies are expensive and now every 99 bucks count). I think the Stratfor readership is not stupid and know pretty well what they are getting for their dollars. I never expected any secret intelligence or detailed first hand reporting of currents events, just a good explanation on how these pieces might fit in the big picture. I need Stratfor because traditional media are failing me. They are too easily manipulated, too hard to read, too uninterested in he truth.
I follow Max Fisher and Dan Drezner, they are very readable, but limited. I follow the cool kids / IR superstars like Dan Trombly and Andrew Exum. They are very bright, but George Friedman is much more useful because he provides a very simple and coherent framework for understanding geopolitical events past and future. Sometimes he gets things wrong, sometimes spectacularly wrong, but over the years his views have mostly stood the test of time (even if Japan and the USA haven't gone to war yet).
This attack on Stratfor really changed my opinion about Anonymous and Wikileaks. The purported reasons for the attack are not believable. It is obvious to me that this is a failed (at least for now...) act of censorship and Anonymous / Wikileaks are a front to someone who isn't interested in having Stratfor's opinions and advice polluting the USA media consensus on some issue. Things may become clearer when/if other news organizations are attacked.
Interesting times.
os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
I've subscribed (paid subscriptions) to many of them
Wish I had your disposable income.
No the people who compare something with 70 employees to the CIA are the fucking idiots and that's my entire point. How many businesses near you have more than that and are not considered a big deal?
Consider a large high school - about the same number of employees and more capital expenditure on buildings and grounds. Now do you understand why I used that example?
I could have used plenty of others. The company I work for is a minor player in it's market (resource exploration), has only around 100 employees outside of peak times, but clients "funnell millions of dollars" into the company each month to get the services they want. If I were to call it a "shadow Halliburton" I'd deservedly get nothing but laughter and that's all these Stratfor clowns deserve with their claims of being a "shadow CIA".
As I have seen the scoring on my first post go up and down several times and note the scoring on humor.... Sooo...
The first step in dealing with addiction is to admit it openly. That is the genuine intelligent thing to do And in this case it is also a step in the direction of correction.
It's not meaningful unless you can compare it to other ratings for other news services.
As long as their accuracy is well below 50% you might just as well flip a coin. And political "experts" usually don't know what they're talking about anyway