Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Begins Releasing Stratfor Internal Emails

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the why-are-they-so-mean? dept.

Security 220

owenferguson writes "WikiLeaks has begun leaking a cache of over 5 million internal emails from the the Texas-headquartered 'global intelligence' company Stratfor. The emails date from between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. The associated news release can be found on pastebin."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (0, Redundant)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168587)

A company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but is secretly an intelligence publisher? Oh, Associated Press, why you make no sense?

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168617)

How do you go from this...

They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

...to this...

A company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but is secretly an intelligence publisher?

...instead of something like:
A company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but secretly acts as an intelligence agency.

Even if that introduction wasn't clear enough, the remainder of the press release would have cleared things up quite well.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168781)

When my daughter was 3 she riddled me this:

Her: "What looks like a bear, acts like and bear and IS a bear?"

Me: "Gee honey bubbles, I have no idea... I know I know - A BEAR!!!!"

Her: "Nuh uh!"

Me: "No? Then what looks like a bear and acts like a bear and IS a bear that ISN'T a Bear?"

Her: "A BERENSTAIN BEAR!!!!"

My daughter, the genius. If the CIA is a bear, Stratfor is a Berenstain Bear. Kind of like how a Southern Mansion is a Southern Mansion, but a Southern Mansion Style McMansion in the exurbs of San Diego is a caricature of a Mansion. Both comfy places to live, the McMansions just fake and cheezy and third rate as fuckall.

Re:Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168801)

Bill Hicks: yeah yeah, I know YOU think your children are special. I'm just here to tell you - they're not!

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169009)

Q:What's a Stratfor?
A:Playing the blues.

Act like a bear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169199)

Your child will be disappointed to learn bears don't wear overalls or hold tea parties.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168849)

I am seriously baffled that there are people who didn't realize that Stratfor gathers up and analyzes the intelligence they publish.

Basically, what I think the GP poster is saying is that they're a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but secretly generates intelligence. To publish. And, as a private company they save some of it for paying customers.

I haven't finished reading every document in the leak (and probably won't if I don't find something interesting soon) but so far it's not really revealing anything that anyone who's heard of Stratfor didn't know. Except maybe a level of security incompetence (which is really what Anonymous is best at revealing).

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

chaboud (231590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169523)

I think the most unnerving parts of this could be:

- They are sometimes used by the US government (and others), presumably to provide a hint of plausible deniability.
- They're trading on markets using information gained via espionage, sometimes with information gained at the urging of government agencies.
- They're all-around scary dudes with close ties to our government and our financial organizations.

We'll get more details, but those crazies with delusional rantings about shady para-governmental organizations with nearly boundless resources and a shortage of moral or ethical restriction? Yeah, they're going to be busy for a while.

Re:Huh? (1)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169629)

I agree. The scandals, if there are any real ones, are going to amount to fancy new kinds of insider trading and tax evasion, with some outing of dirty politicians on the side.

No, you are wrong. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169799)

I think you need to go back and re-read some of this information, as you've obviously missed a lot.

There are documents describing plans for insider trading. There are tons of references to how they collect and pay for their info, which are shady at best and criminal at worst.

Stratfor claims to be "just a newsletter site that does some intel analysis", but these emails make it very clear that they also do intel COLLECTION, which is a completely different ball-game and far more likely to reveal illegal dealings. There's even more than that.

Basically, they're a vertical integration of the private intel world. They solicit clients for analyis reports, data collection and action plans. They themselves are directly involved with the data collection and marketing it to potential buyers.

So they're actually covert intelligence operatives that will sell to anyone with enough money but have access to a lot of classified US material that claim to be "just intelligence analysts."

FTFY.

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168955)

Either way it's a newspaper clipping service with less than twenty employees and delusions of granduer.
Look at the comments on that last story about these people to see how well their self promotion worked. Restoring their computer systems was seen by many here as an epic task and not the reality of dealing with a server or two and twenty or less PCs and laptops.

Re:Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169429)

Hey guess what. Its black history month!!1!!

Niggers.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168961)

I don't see how as a practical matter you could be one and not the other and be any good at your job. A newspaper publisher either has to do its own journalism, or it has to just aggregate other peoples. An intelligence company needs to either aggregate other peoples information (which is really analysis, rather than data sourcing), and it will need a source of that information. The difference between a publisher that contracts independent sources, and a company with regular employees doing these things is not that big a deal.

The actual article isn't 'intelligence agency vs intelligence publisher' it's an intelligence company that as one of the things it's doing is trying to bribe people for insider information, and to resell that insider information in violation of corrupt practices and insider trading rules.

If you want information (call it journalism, intelligence, verification or whatever) on the health of say Hugo Chavez, your options are limited on how to get that which isn't illegal (assuming he isn't telling the truth). If you're being contracted to train intelligence analysts or agents from a government agency you need to have people who have past experience with intelligence gathering and analysis. To accomplish either of those things it's pretty obvious what they're up to. How do journalists get sources or info? Right, either you pay them, or they volunteer for the promise of future payoffs. That's the nature of the business and insofar as journalism is legal, it is legal.

The only thing particularly more sleazy than the nature of the business itself is the insider trading and related work (either paying off private or government persons for information about information that is not yet public). That's the sort of thing that journalists, parliament/congress etc. have particular legal walls around, because you really really really cannot use information that will be public before it becomes public. It shouldn't even be surprising that these things happen, it's only a matter of if or when they get caught by people who aren't in on the deal.

Just in general doing business in most of the world requires paying off the right people, in cash, in the right currency, at the right time. Everyone knows it, no one admits to it, no one really does anything about it because that's just how the world works. It used to be tax deductible for businesses in germany to pay bribes overseas for example, it's just the cost of doing business.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169095)

one of the things it's doing is trying to bribe people for insider information, and to resell that insider information in violation of corrupt practices and insider trading rules

And what is your evidence that Stratfor is bribing anyone or doing anything illegal? If you have an actual evidence, let's see it.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

chaboud (231590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169557)

"[Y]ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase"

At the very least, they're looking to coerce or bribe an Israeli intelligence informant. It's certainly well into the grey area. Their great efforts to set up a pseudo-independent StratCap StratFund for StratInsider StratTrading stinks of SEC violations if they leveraged information gained in one space (by its nature, illicit) for gains in another.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168681)

I think the point is that these intelligence services go beyond what any reasonable person would consider ethical or appropriate.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168757)

No, pastebin fronts as a code-sharing site. :)

Seriously, how have they not been nuked from orbit by the powers that be? Or at least vigorously co-opted by the NSA?

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168855)

Re: Seriously, how have they...
Disinformation, selective leaks, like to see who is interested, who can work out what. All the chatter lights up a lot of hidden blogs, press people who can still think.
95% can be true, a few real gems in the released works and then that small fake amount that makes the next war seem "ok" to the average person when the press 'finds' it.
If a real expert gets talking in court or via lawyers to the press, then it gets much more interesting.
Costas Tsalikidis, the Greek telco whistleblower who was found hanged.
Spyware eavesdropped on the Greek prime Minister and other top officials’ cell phone calls; it even monitored the car phone of Greece’s secret service chief.
Adamo Bove head of security at Telecom Italia who exposed the CIA renditions via cell phone logs ‘fell’ to his death.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the D.C. Madam was found hanged.

Re:Huh? (1)

owenferguson (521762) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168807)

Just a note: The press release is the one associated with the story. It is not from the Associated Press, which I would have capitalized as such, had it been the case.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168853)

lol I know, I heard the president of stratfor SAY ON A RADIO INTERVIEW that they were a compiler publisher of intelligence information lol

finally, through the looking glass (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168593)

The plots of the reverse vampires will be revealed.

Meh. (-1, Troll)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168599)

If they are as exciting as the Manning leaks, I'll pass. Newspaper excerpts and rumour collections from various countries, even when stamped "CIA" or "Stratfor" do not an interesting reading make.

Re:Meh. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168621)

You mean the ones that acted as the catalyst for the Arab Spring? Maybe you didn't find them that interesting, but some of us did.

Re:Meh. (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168669)

You mean the ones that acted as the catalyst for oppressive Arab governments to be overthrown and replaced by even more oppressive Arab governments? Maybe you didn't find them that interesting, but some of us did.

FTFY

Re:Meh. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168777)

You mean the ones that acted as the catalyst for oppressive Arab governments to be overthrown and replaced by even more oppressive Arab governments because the US will never tolerate democracy in the middle east? Maybe you didn't find them that interesting, but some of us did.

FTFY

Re:Meh. (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169075)

. . . because the US will never tolerate democracy in the middle east?

Ignoring Iraq and Israel?

Re:Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169101)

Israel's purpose it to destabilize any emerging threats to US hegemony, though that dog got off it's leash a long time ago. It's also only a democracy if you ignore the Palestinians...

And Iraq... democracy??? Hehe... priceless.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169339)

Stupid dick.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169379)

Veys mir - why wouldn't you ignore the Palestinians? We do!

Re:Meh. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168869)

The french revolution had quite a lot of bad governments before something good was found as well.

Re:Meh. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169081)

I didn't realize that they had found a good one.

Re:Meh. (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169177)

Yeah, if they can't form a perfect representative democracy within a single year, then they deserve to live under dictatorial rule forever. It's high time we take up the white man's burden and show them how to live, because clearly they have no right to try to rule themselves.

Just out of curiosity, roughly how many fifths of a person would you say Arabs are?

Re:Meh. (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169575)

Just out of curiosity, roughly how many fifths of a person would you say Arabs are?

Five.

But yahoos on Slashdot who ascribe any criticism of Middle Eastern fascism to some kind of racism...perhaps one.

Re:Meh. (5, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169471)

You mean the ones that acted as the catalyst for the Arab Spring?

We keep hearing that from fans and boosters of Wikileaks, but it simply isn't true. Do you really think that the Arabs living under bad governments needed someone to tell them that they had badly run corrupt governments when it was a fact that assulted them nearly every day of their lives? Do you not know that many of those countries had been simmering under revolution or revolt for years? I guess the "White Man's Burden" is still with us in the form of "Wikileaks".

A Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi is generally credited with starting the Arab Spring after he set himself on fire when the police confiscated his fruit stand in December 2010. Less than a month after his self-immolation – he eventually died – President Zine al Abdedine Ben Ali fled Tunisia after 23 years in office. Several other self-immolations quickly follow Bouazizi’s, particularly in Egypt where that revolution would start a little more than a month later. -- Moroccan Protesters the Latest to Set Themselves on Fire [go.com]

The facts are that on 17 December last year, Mohamed, a market trader whose father had died when he was three and who had been helping to support his family financially since the age of 10, set himself on fire after a dispute with a government official over where he could sell his fruit and vegetables. At the time, it was widely reported that the municipal inspector, a woman named Fedia Hamdi with a reputation for strictness, had slapped Mohamed across the face – the ultimate insult in such a patriarchal Arab community. The confrontation seemed to pit an ordinary man, struggling to make a living, against the uniformed symbol of a corrupt regime. Bouazizi's suicide at the age of 26 was seen by many as an act borne of his intense frustration with authoritarian rule. It became the domino that fell and triggered a chain of revolutions across the Arab world. -- The slap that sparked a revolution [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Meh. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168649)

You've totally nailed the purpose of wikileaks: to entertain you. They should just give up.

Re:Meh. (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168737)

What a fucking fag-ass you are. Of course, Timothy is pro-JIDF so he will ban me (again, like he did last night) for posting this comment.

When the Kikes get too big for their britches, the majority of starving, jobless Americans will not surrender their few remaining resources to Israel.

Wikileaks for the win. Destroy-Iran-for-Israel rhetoric for the lose.

Re:Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168973)

That diatribe certainly sounded Ethanol-fueled.

Re:Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169015)

Sigh...

Dude, there are ways to say pretty much everything you said, minus the slur, and get +5 instead of a karma burn.

Tact. Use it.

Re:Meh. (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169617)

and if his purpose was to enter into intelligent discussion he probably would have tried to.

Re:Meh. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169043)

No one likes you here.

Re:Meh. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169491)

And we don't want to be around the kind of people who like him.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169605)

It'd be fascinating to know how that actually sounded in your head.

Re:Meh. (5, Insightful)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168677)

I'm pretty sure that proof could be posted that the president eats babies, and a large segment of the population like yourself would say 'meh'. There was some rather nasty revelations in the Manning leaks, but I'm guessing you missed them or didn't cae.

That complacency is why our democracy is sliding away.

Re:Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168809)

I say "meh" because I'm not surprised nor am I bothered by a government that acts in this way. In fact, I'm rather comforted to learn these nasty things go on behind the scenes. Are a few eggs broken on the way to the omelette of life in America? Sure. Some even get dropped on the floor and eaten by the dog. But in the end our way of life prevails. Oh sure, you'll call me selfish and amerocentric and whatever nasty leftist label you can come up with, but when it comes right down to it you'll cry a fucking a river the moment you're slightly inconvenienced in your comfy Western life.

Espionage, enhanced interrogations, renditioning, torture, political assassinations, the overthrowing of governments... I'm OK with these things, and so are most people when faced with the alternative. Oh, and I'm sure you'll pounce on that one, too... about how it's all unnecessary and the world could be puppy dogs and rainbows if we'd all just get along. Sorry, but all the We Are The World ensembles in the -- well, world -- won't change the fact that someone else thinks their way of life is better, yours is evil, and that you should be killed because you don't agree. I prefer to be better at protecting my way of life than they are, and with guns and deplorable violence if necessary.

Re:Meh. (5, Insightful)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168879)

I'm not a 'leftist', so I'll have to apologize for not fitting into your world of walking, talking strawmen.

Regardless, you seem to be under the (albeit sincerely naive) impression that all those things you list are still working in your favour, and that those in political and corporate power are beholden to your interests. They aren't. You're thinking is about 50 years too late - those were the 'good ole days' of benevolence and spirit, working against common enemies and using whatever means necessary to triumph.

In a world where governments are beholden to corporations with no loyalties, they are as likely to be working against you as they are for you. Get it yet?

Re:Meh. (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169215)

At least you're honest about it. Probably won't help you when they come after you though.

Re:Meh. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169519)

And principles are for chumps, and limits on government power,pah! those Founding Fathers was a bunch of commie queers! If you're not taking it up the rear every hour of every day as a card carrying member of the Cult of Authoritarianism, then your a Leftist fag!

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169029)

If these revelations are so nasty, what are they? I don't mean to imply what you are saying is wrong, I'm genuinely asking what are these revelations? I'm puzzled as to why none of them are discussed in the media, any media outlet. Please provide links. My impression is the leaks must not have much in the way of a "pentagon papers" moment, which is why no one is pointing to a smoking gun?

So please. Post links. Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169511)

I'm pretty sure that proof could be posted that the president eats babies, and a large segment of the population like yourself would say 'meh'. There was some rather nasty revelations in the Manning leaks, but I'm guessing you missed them or didn't cae.

That complacency is why our democracy is sliding away.

Proof? I suppose the e-mails and diplomatic cables all came with certificates of authenticity, right? How the hell do we know ANY of the supposedly leaked documents are true? That's what I've never heard anyone explain.

Re:Meh. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169819)

...There was some rather nasty revelations in the Manning leaks, but I'm guessing you missed them or didn't care.

Problem isn't that we missed them or don't care. Problem is, if we pay attention we're left with two choices: do nothing and have all the crap hanging over our conscience, or abandon our comfortable lives to do something about it. It's much easier to shove our fingers in our ears and sing lalalala, ignorance is bliss.

That complacency is why our democracy is sliding away.

When our you people going to stop using "democracy" as some fucking magic incantation? Democracy was a good form of government for the 20th century, but it's been completely subverted now. Get over it, it don't work no more, the politicians have figured out all the loopholes that circumvent all the advantages that "democracy" gave to regular people. Time to move on and come up with a better form of government.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168875)

Yeah, governments engaging in murder (including the U.S. government) was TOTALLY boring.

passwords in leak (5, Funny)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168625)

Here's a fun leak [wikileaks.org] . Complete with passwords like:
changeme
and
stratfor

For a long time (5, Interesting)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168651)

after the Stratfor website went live, one could log in with the username/password combo of "username" and "password". If that's how much attention they paid to protecting their rather expensive subscription service, one wonders is if the security of their email servers was any better.

Re:For a long time (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168931)

http://cryptocomb.org/ [cryptocomb.org] has some hints.
Some form of intel gathering site and email passing centre for some well known people.

Capitalist Intelligence Agency (4, Insightful)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168657)

Seems like a familiar acronym...

From the article:

"Government and diplomatic sources from around the world give Stratfor advance knowledge of global politics and events in exchange for money."

I hope it's effective. I don't have a problem with people buying info.

I do have a huge problem with people in positions of responsibility selling it for their own profit at our expense though...

Re:Capitalist Intelligence Agency (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168833)

I hope it's effective. I don't have a problem with people buying info.

I do have a huge problem with people in positions of responsibility selling it for their own profit at our expense though...

How do you reconcile those two sentences?

Or ... guess what makes people in positions of responsibility sell information for their own profit? That's right ... other people buy it.

The position of responsibility is why they had the info to sell. They are insiders who are in the loop. Information everyone already knows doesn't command a very high price.

Re:Capitalist Intelligence Agency (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168933)

I hope it's effective. I don't have a problem with people buying info.

I do have a huge problem with people in positions of responsibility selling it for their own profit at our expense though...

How do you reconcile those two sentences?

Easy. He places the culpability only on the person selling the information. The person who's in a position of trust and trusted not to do what they're doing. You know, blame the person whose JOB it is NOT to do it, not the person whose job it is TO do it.

Re:Capitalist Intelligence Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169011)

So you don't blame MAFIA hitman for killing people either, because it's HIS JOB?

Re:Capitalist Intelligence Agency (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169183)

Only if he talks about it afterwards... :D

I see what you tried to do there.

Re:Capitalist Intelligence Agency (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169271)

I guess I reconcile them thus: There will always be a market for information. I hope our people do more buying than selling. Selling information you are entrusted to protect is despicable. Buying information you need is understandable.

To say that it is the buyer's fault is like saying "If everyone were perfect, X would happen"

I believe systems must be designed for the real world, not utopia [wikipedia.org] . I hope our systems work better. Even if they are based on that evil money I never seem to have enough of...

Re:Capitalist Intelligence Agency (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168975)

I hope it's effective. I don't have a problem with people buying info.

Oh, it's *very* effective. That's how we knew just in time that Saddam had hidden chemical weapons and WMDs all over Iraq...

Media Partners? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168661)

I see Al Akhbar as a media partner...

Is it a trap?

CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168705)

And their CEO is toast... the word of even this leaking out via intercepted e-mail: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/leaked-email-shows-stratfor-ceo-george-friedman-resigned-two-hours-ago-over-latest-breach

Zerohedge is all over this like white on rice. For those complaining about boring content in the leaks, see ZH's coverage on the e-mails relating to Obama's inability to maintain a liberal/progressive position and the Republicans' ability to field a decent candidate: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/stratfor-email-leak-reveals-insider-views-obama-emanuel-romney

Sure, we all knew that the players of the American political football game hadn't yet figured out which direction to run on the field, which team they're playing for, or why their ball is spherical and made of pentagons and hexagons, but it's fun to read about this half-assed private intelligence agency saying the same things that we've all been thinking AND about their supposed contacts with shadowy billionaire Powers That Be saying the same: that the Democrats have no spine and the Republicans no brains.

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (5, Insightful)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168775)

I'll wait 'til I've seen verification before I believe it or not ... but it's real or not, I still found this line funny:

Regarding the latest breach, Stratfor is fully in control of the situation

If it's real, I also wonder about:

To be clear: We certainly do not condone any criminal activities by groups like Anonymous or other hackers

I mean, this is a group that makes their money by paying off people to get them information, in ways that are hinted are against the law (likely they're getting other people to break the law of other countries, even if the company themselves aren't) ... but they're against hackers that break the law? It seems a a bit hypocritical to me.

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168873)

I'll wait 'til I've seen verification before I believe it or not ... but it's real or not, I still found this line funny:

Regarding the latest breach, Stratfor is fully in control of the situation

If it's real, I also wonder about:

To be clear: We certainly do not condone any criminal activities by groups like Anonymous or other hackers

I mean, this is a group that makes their money by paying off people to get them information, in ways that are hinted are against the law (likely they're getting other people to break the law of other countries, even if the company themselves aren't) ... but they're against hackers that break the law? It seems a a bit hypocritical to me.

Sure, just like the way the government can't easily conduct certain forms of surveillance because that would run afoul of the 4th Amendment... but they can contract that out, purchasing the same information from companies conducting the same surveillance, and that's perfectly cromulent.

Yet, if you commit a crime by proxy, you're just as guilty as your hireling. For example, if you hired a contract killer you would be convicted for murder along with your mercenary. And unlike the US Constitution, the law under which you'd be convicted is not the highest law of the land.

Figure that one out in a logically consistent, non-hypocritical way.

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (1)

owenferguson (521762) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168951)

Please mod parent up for exceptional use of the word "cromulent."

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169407)

This post's score has been duly embiggened.

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168919)

I mean, this is a group that makes their money by paying off people to get them information, in ways that are hinted are against the law (likely they're getting other people to break the law of other countries, even if the company themselves aren't) ... but they're against hackers that break the law? It seems a a bit hypocritical to me.

It's only hacking if it is done by someone not in power, or not on the behest of someone in power.

The government can listen to your phone calls without a warrant. But a man recording police is being tried for a 75 year jail sentance [infowars.com] for recording police out in the open.

In the same way, when it is the powers that be are stealing information through nefarious methods, it is just business as usual. When you do it to them, they call their friends - who arrest you.

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168779)

Who signs your paycheque AC? I'd HEDGE my bets that there's at least a ZERO in there.

I'm too vague...SHILL! SHILL!! SHILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168883)

Wow, ZH pay someone to shill for them? Beyond that none of the paranoid extremists who read ZH would accept payment in any form other than physical possession of precious metals and CERTAINLY never a paper check signed by anyone, let alone by the fictitious Tyler Durden, your suggestion is mooted by the fact that the ZH crowd are all bitter, twisted, anti-social Sovereign Persons and former Patriot-Movement members for whom posting on Slashdot would be hampered by crippling agoraphobia and constant runs to the basement/bunker windows to scan the horizon for black helicopters homing. The few who are sufficiently psychologically healthy to be able to post coherently on Slashdot are angry, angry mid-level investment bankers who have access to and actually understand financial data that would bore Slashdotters to tears and who in turn are bored by information technology except in as much as it provides them with the data they need to continue raping the middle class by day and writing guilt-ridden screeds by night about economic injustice and the need for dismantling the corrupt abomination that capitalism in the US and Europe has become before the middle class evaporates. There's just no interest in shilling.

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168845)

Zerohedge is all over this like white on rice.

I eat brown rice because it's more nutritious ... uh, you insensitive clod!

Re:CEO down, comments on your favorite politicians (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169397)

Wait, so you're telling me that one party's nominee is a weak candidate who will probably win because his opponent will be even weaker? Where have I heard that [wikipedia.org] before [wikipedia.org] ?

mod 38own (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168707)

Assholes, as they Sho0ts To the contributed code

Non-US leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168749)

Any? This is getting mundane

Re:Non-US leaks (3, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168981)

There are a lot - wikileaks won an award about their ones from Kenya for example. It's just that US media is of course interested in the US stuff.

Oh, my, the irony of this! (3, Interesting)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168907)

Source: lines 33 & 35 (with added emphasis):

Ironically, considering the present circumstances, Stratfor was trying to get into what it called the leak-focused "gravy train" that sprung up after WikiLeaks' Afghanistan disclosures:

"[Is it] possible for us to get some of that 'leak-focused' gravy train? This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred and Stick know better than anyone on the planet... Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of 'leak-focused' network security that focuses on preventing one's own employees from leaking sensitive information... In fact, I'm not so sure this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution."

Union Carbide (3, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168963)

The Bhopal disaster was caused by Union Carbide. It had nothing to do with Dow. I don't like Dow either, but blaming them for that is ridiculous.

Re:Union Carbide== DOW (5, Insightful)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169027)

DOW didn't buy on a whim, many people spent a lot of time in the process of buying the corp. Simply selling a corporation does not allow it to escape justice; despite them usually escaping justice anyway. DOW bought Union Carbide knowing the issues and expecting to never have to factor that cost other than maybe a few PR statements and lawyers considered minor baggage in the acquisition.

It has everything to do with DOW; because Union Carbide still exists within a bigger corporation - simply because the name changed and some people shuffled around does not make them disappear, it means the new name becomes the one we rail against.

Re:Union Carbide== DOW (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169363)

No, Dow bought Union Carbide's assets. That's like saying that if you bought a car from someone that they used to run over an old lady, somehow you're now responsible for her murder. It just doesn't work that way.

Further than that, the government had already released Union Carbide from liability, so it's really perplexing that anybody thinks Dow should have any responsibility in this situation.

Re:Union Carbide (3, Insightful)

punit_r (1080185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169039)

And, Union Carbide is a wholly owned subsidy of .......... ?

The company acquiring Union Carbide has also acquired all the liabilities along with the assets. Dow has pretty much everything to do with Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster. If Dow did not want the "baggage" that came along with the Union Carbide purchase, they should have stayed away from it.

Re:Union Carbide (3, Informative)

Seraphim1982 (813899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169353)

The company acquiring Union Carbide has also acquired all the liabilities along with the assets. Dow has pretty much everything to do with Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster. If Dow did not want the "baggage" that came along with the Union Carbide purchase, they should have stayed away from it.

How exactly did Dow have "pretty much everything to do with[...] the Bhopal disaster" when the the closest they come is owning the company that at one point in the past owned the company that owned the plant? The Bhopal plant was run by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), and UCIL was sold to an Indian company back in the early 90's. About 7 years later Dow came along and bought Union Carbide. So not only is there a few layers of ownership in between, there is also a gap of several years. Why doesn't Eveready Industries India Ltd (the company that UCIL turned into) get the "baggage" associated with Bhopal?

Re:Union Carbide (4, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169119)

Dow acquired Union Carbide so they acquired the responsibilities too.

Re:Union Carbide (3, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169555)

Corporate responsibility?

What are you, some kind of commie?

The thing I don't get (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169111)

The thing I don't get, and haven't gotten since the beginning is... how the hell do we (or does anyone for that matter,) know ANYTHING coming out of Wikileaks is accurate, true, or even real? They could just be making it all up. For example... I am leaking the following confidential White House Memo: (How can anyone know for sure this isn't real? You can't. Just as there's no way to know the ones leaked by Wikileaks are real.)

From: President of the US
To: Secretary of Defense
Subject: UFO Cover-Up

I have been informed by the Secretary of the Air Force that ANOTHER UFO has landed at Area 52. Pursuant to Executive Order 1972-0812-3b, para. 4, all extraterrestrial aircraft are to land at Area 51. This information must be disseminated to all incoming ETA's, UFO's, etc., to ensure no further incidents of the kind that happened April 5th occur again.

If this kind of thing recurs, the cost to taxpayers incurred by covering up out-of-zone landings will exacerbate the budget deficit. With reelection right around the corner, that cannot be allowed to happen.

Please see that this is taken care of.

~The President.

See? Looks real enough, doesn't it?

Re:The thing I don't get (4, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169265)

You have people in the press that can look at dates, public info and then ask ex workers, historians if the info looks right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries [wikipedia.org]
If the layout, date, departments and names don't fit, you have problems.
You can get vey detailed about one message or just look at the massive amount and ask...
Where is country x,y,x, why does it seem filtered, pre packaged... if a EU members spy agency is really so upset - why no real action?
You then have cases where a gov goes on raids or just pulls back to let it flow out as not to upset larger PR operations.

Re:The thing I don't get (5, Insightful)

msheekhah (903443) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169289)

you know when the U.S. Government tries to charge you under the Espionage Act, that's how.

NO it doesnt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169297)

the real documents wikileaks has and people see them and there are ways to tell a presidential MEMO or order form what you just posted....THIS is why people authenticate them which takes time then posts them....I am sure if your really really want to pay wikileaks they will let you have a copy from the originals ....
AND Note that at least in part it is being said in these docs and after the release that Anonymous may or may not have had something to do with said leaks.

Re:The thing I don't get (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169317)

The US Govt hates wikileaks, but has never questioned the so called facts published by it. Which could mean they are either working with the US Govt, or that, they really havent published anything can be proved to be false. I personally go for the second possibility. You seem to a patriotic american and an apologist for the US Govt, I dont you would like either of the possibilities. Though I really doubt, if you go for the first.

Re:The thing I don't get (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169333)

See? Looks real enough, doesn't it?

No.

Fuck you, Timothy, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169325)

and your insane conspiracy theories.

Go back to stormfront and stop posting your trash on slashdot.

who cares? (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169403)

nothing will change, nothing has changed, its a 30 second flash in headlines, and a 10 second clip on one Simpsons episode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDEu0-1TW-c) once the suits in the tv room get a clue.

Its a simple fact, no one cares, or no one cares to understand ... so big fucking what? nothing has changed a single bit.

Where Journalists Went After the Internet (5, Insightful)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169455)

I am about to show my age, but once upon a time, news organizations were amongst the premier intelligence gathering organizations on Earth. No shit. Reporters could discover sources that foreign agents could never approach, keep secrets, and even upend a Presidency. Think of that. Now, they are just parts of conglomerates' entertainment divisions. So, what happened to the really good investigative journalists, who could dig diamonds from piles of crap? Well, some of them are at Stratfor.

Re:Where Journalists Went After the Internet (3, Interesting)

KagakuNinja (236659) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169635)

No, that is the rose-tinted version of the past. The reality of Watergate was that the FBI was at war with the White House; Deep Throat (Mark Felt) himself was up to his eyeballs in corruption, having overseen COINTELPRO, and later convicted for it. Deep Throat was funneling information to Woodward and Bernstein for selfish political purposes.

Supposed hard-nosed "investigative journalist" Woodward now makes his living as a conduit for White House insiders who want to get their white-washed version of history into his hagiographic "behind the scenes" books. He is a total tool of the American political elite.

Re:Where Journalists Went After the Internet (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169699)

Really? Since it's a place with around twenty employees in total you could easily list all of those "really good investigative journalists" at Stratfor in a comment here. Please do so. Then compare that to the list of investigative journalists at a major newspaper and the awards that they have won. Where's their Robert Fisk (whether you think he's biased for daring to write things criticising Israel or not) or anyone remotely similar?
If they are bylines that we know then why not list them instead of just hinting at some haven for supermen in what appears to be a clipping agency?

Re:Where Journalists Went After the Internet (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169721)

So, what happened to the really good investigative journalists, who could dig diamonds from piles of crap? Well, some of them are at Stratfor.

Investigative journalism is alive and well.
The problem is with the parent companies hushing things up because the government says two magic words: National Security

Almost every major scandal of the Bush & Obama administrations has been followed up with:
"[News Agency] sat on the story for X year(s) at the request of the government"

And this isn't limited to stories that touch on national issues; it happens at every level of media.
Your local paper is just as likely to keep silent as the NY Times on everything from corruption to sex scandals to corporate malfeasance.

Embargoed? (1)

PiMuNu (865592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169609)

Ironically the wikileaks press release was embargoed...

Oblig. (0)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169715)

What's a Strat 'fer?

Re:Oblig. (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169823)

it's fer killer chords.

Goatse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169757)

I like how the wikileaks logo for the project looks like goatse and it was cleverly abbreviated as "GI Files" (Gastrointestinal), someone's getting it in the ass over this.

Interesting names cropping up there... (3, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169815)

...considering this company, at first glance at TFS, seems to be primarily concerned with passing information of a secure and sensitive nature between not only State agencies of different countries but also defence contractors which themselves are concerned also with collecting and dispersing such information for whatever purposes; I'm concerned that it is dealing with the company which had the dubious honour of processing in and storing the UK census data from 2011. This is considered live information and as far as I'm concerned, what with the nature of the questions* contained in that census (I was a refuser for the following reason), that information in the wrong hands (ie ANY agency or individual working under the flag of a different nation - ANY DIFFERENT NATION!) is a persistent threat to national security, and whoever authorised such an arrangement should hang by their bollocks. If Lockheed Martin are involved with such a company, how much of the UK census data have they passed through this company to other companies or agencies, or how much of that data that this company has been entrusted with has found its way to eg DHS? I for one am very concerned.

*ie, what's the occupation of every adult of working age in the household, what's their earning power, how many hours do they work, how often individuals travel abroad, where they travel to...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?