Stratfor CEO: Data wasn't encrypted, and hackers made multiple attacks

I use that term advisedly, though I know lots of people will object to the t-word. It's not about killing people (though, when it comes to global security, it's difficult to estimate the repercussions), but it is about providing prominent public examples of what happens if you communicate in a way that's publicly comprehensible. Which is to say, speaking openly behind the walls of your organization with the (false) belief that your emails to your colleagues are inherently hidden from a public view.

This creates a huge overhead to communication. We've all written emails that, when a phrase is taken out of context, can bring massive scandal and disrepute on you and your organization. (See, for instance, "hide the decline" or "trick.") So the only option is to clamp down on communication, and when it does happen rely on mealy-mouthed or specialized language whose real meaning no one except the two speakers can understand.

This won't lead to the ossification and death of corrupt organizations that rely on secrecy, contra Assange. It will lead to a Straussian world where all real information is just hidden from the public and kept as public secrets that only the elite are privy to, instead of available to anyone through media like Stratfor.