Anonymous AntiSec Takes Down Stratfor
mikecanex.wordpress.com
mikecanex.wordpress.com
> Subject: Important Announcement from STRATFOR
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:49:58 -0500
From: STRATFOR <mail[at]response.stratfor.com>
Dear Stratfor Member,
We have learned that Stratfor's web site was hacked by an unauthorized party. As a result of this incident the operation of Stratfor's servers and email have been suspended.
We have reason to believe that the names of our corporate subscribers have been posed on other web sites. We are diligently investigating the extent to which subscriber information may have been obtained.
Stratfor and I take this incident very seriously. Stratfor's relationship with its members and, in particular, the confidentiality of their subscriber information, are very important to Stratfor and me. We are working closely with law enforcement in their investigation and will assist them with the identification of the individual(s) who are responsible.
Although we are still learning more and the law enforcement investigation is active and ongoing, we wanted to provide you with notice of this incident as quickly as possible. We will keep you updated regarding these matters.
Sincerely,
George Friedman
STRATFOR
221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701 US
www.stratfor.com
I'm curious as to how many sites they are unsuccessful in compromising before they finally manage to find one with a vulnerability.
It's sort of a weird field, I work for a hedge fund so I know that some people do hire these guys / subscribe to their research.
Personally, I think a lot of geopolitical risk analysis work is kind of BS. They are incentivized to freak you out and make you scare of the world so you'll keep buying their research. I was just at a conference where a guy from one risk firm claimed that there was a 60% chance of an attack by the US/Israel on Iran. But he had no real systematic process at work and no track record of making accurate positions, so it's tough to probability weight that kind of scenario from an investor's perspective.
I don't think it's the greatest way to try to make money, but I can understand that guys that are investing in very oil specific/security sensitive plays, this kind of research could add a bit incremental value.
For the most part, their customers are companies who are in industries where geopolitics if off-the-beaten-track places matters. Think resource extraction in developing markets, or other regulated businesses in places where the government may not be too stable/open and the press not too free. When you get into it, there are all sorts of services/lists like Stratfor, each with their own sources and agendas. They're all generally quite expensive, low-profile, and contradictory - but one successful play off a tip from one of these newsletters would reap a reward of hundreds of times its cost. For a sample of these types of reports, check out DebkaFile [1]. It's certainly got its biases and issues, but will give you a taste of what these private intelligence newsletters are like.
As for why they're on Anonymous' bad side, maybe it had to do with Startfor's coverage [2] of Anonymous' mini-campaign against the Mexican drug cartels?
[2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0VmatoJ...
Maybe someone who knows more can clarify but that's been my impression.
What they've actually done is more like hacking the Economist magazine, which even has something they call the "Economist Intelligence Unit", which I think sells research, albeit probably with a more economic/political/industrial focus than military-focused information.
The goal is to show people that their data is not safe because of widespread poor security and to encourage the public to actually demand more than a token effort.
I don't want it to sound like I fully support their actions but it's silly to make them out to be ignorant or inconsistent.
Stratfor is essentially a US-based but global news source that gives you the expert commentary and analysis on geopolitical issues that the regular news won't tell you.
Case in point: I started subscribing to Stratfor after the Fukushima meltdown and their great commentary on the situation, stuff that you wouldn't hear about from any other news source. One really great analysis talked about how the farm lands would take over a year just to recover from the salt water from the tsunami, let alone the other damage. Stuff like that you just don't read from CNN, google news, etc. As well, despite what the Japanese government was telling the world, it turned out to be the worst nuclear disaster in history.
They have expert commentary and analysis on any types of issues that are geopolitical in nature. For example, they have a lot of information on the European financial crisis, Iran capturing the drone, and they even debunked a recent Iranian news conference saying they had captured an American spy. Their analysis on the Middle East protests, as well as the the fallout in terms of Putin's recent political issues, etc, was very interesting.
It's pretty much the most informed, independent, honest news source for anything going on throughout the world.
The comments above talking about how they fear monger, etc, is completely unfounded, at least from what I've seen. I've subscribed to them for almost a year now, and there's no fear mongering whatsoever.
The fact that Anonymous/hacker groups would target Stratfor is kind of idiotic, it's independent news sources like this that don't work at the behest of governments and Rupert Murdoch that is keeping us informed, at least somewhat.
That seems pretty unobjectionable. It's probably even true, and probably ought to have been obvious to the industry without Stratfor's advice. The issue is how the industry responded: by throwing up smokescreens? By lobbying government to avoid regulation? Or by working to reduce emissions and satisfy the public's concerns? An outfit like Stratfor can't control what actions its clients take based on the information and opinions it provides.
So Sourcewatch's case comes down to 1) a leftist's complaint about its coverage of Latin America, and 2) something that is not objectionable.
Which is pretty weak.
Stratfor looks interesting. I bookmarked it and I'll decide on my own if it's propaganda or not after reading it for a while.
If anything, that is the reason to dislike them. Their analysis of the facts more or less ignores humanity. But to be fair to them, the world is an inhuman place to live in.
While Blackwater was apparently one of the Stratfor customers in the released files, another organization that came up was Doctors Without Borders. I assume they would be customers because they often work in conflict zones and unstable regions.
Another customer was affiliated with Apple. I suppose it'd be useful to keep tabs on things like the political situation in Thailand, where some suppliers might be located. If some major upheaval were possible, they'd want some warning, so they could start finding possible alternate suppliers.
While Stratfor's site is down, you might get an idea of what that sort of organization does by looking at the Jane's website, or the Economist Intelligence Unit's site.