STRATFOR Hacked by ‘anonymous’

As much as I think ‘anonymous’ are a cross between spoiled children and terrorists, making quasi or under-informed judgments about the world then applying their ‘skills’ at thievery and destruction and vandalism on whoever’s property on the internet and information they decide doesn’t meet their personal criteria of whatever it is that they use as a standard, I think STRATFOR owes a lot of us an apology for sloppy security at their own site, and not informing us directly by email.

I think I shall have to cancel my subscription.

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

10 Replies to “STRATFOR Hacked by ‘anonymous’”

  1. Stratfor as very very odd choice for an attack by Anonymous. They aren’t a giant faceless corporation with ads on tv every five minutes. i.e. not a household name we all associate with capitalism like we would a sneaker, coffee house chain or military hardware producer.

    So was it really Anonymous? Because Anonymouse is anonymous anyone can do what they like and claim to be Anonymous.

    The purpose of this attack was to attack Stratfor specifically and/or to damage their client relations.

    The humanitarian purpose could have been achieved by attacking any company. The real benifit is the damage to Stratfors client relationships.

    You said it yourself “I think I shall have to cancel my subscription.” That was the exact responce this attack was intended to bring about in Stratfors clients.

    But why? It looks to me like its a company, non governmental body or government that wants to break down the lines of communication within the intelligence and security industry or prevent solid long term relationships of trust from developing between the US governement and analysis companies.

    That seems like the simplest reason.

    And though ones first thought would be a muslim group, my money would be on Russia as this is the sort of thing they would do and the way they would do it. If you’ve seen their RT filth you know that though they are no longer fighting an ideological war they still use every bit of the foriegn subversion and propoganda techniques they developed during that conflict though now its not for a specific cold war but international relations in general.

  2. Klausbert:

    I just checked again. I got none.

    Truthiocity: Your analysis is excellent and probably accurate. Let me know if you start your own agency.

  3. FYI: Stratfor did notify me by email. And coincidentally, my PC suffered a serious malware infection the day after I followed the email’s link.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc! I know. I know. But in the three years I’ve surfed the web on my HP laptop I’ve never encountered such an enslaught.

  4. I recommend cancelling anyway, STRATFOR gives crappy analysis. Also, I seriously question whether Anonymous had anything to do with this, and I only hope it was who I think it was.

  5. 1. Who do you think it was?

    2. Who do you feel gives better analysis? And I tend to agree, I mostly bought it for the SITREPS. But I often get event info before they do from my own network, which is published here for free.

    3. I had to cancel my card, which the credit company tells me is getting a lot of calls about this.

  6. The reason I thought of Russia was that it looked like the end result of this attack was a veague general and easily forgotten weakening of the intelligence infrastructure rather than a news catching event. The atrocity + extortion method of “diplomacy” seems to be popular amongst arabs (they even did it to the UN secretary general during the last koran burning murders) and even when they think they are being all tricksy their taktics and goals are usually pretty simple.

    The subtlety of the attack and the sublty of the goal reflects the KGB way of doing things during the cold war. The subtlety and current world situation indicates Iran but the veagueness of the end result is a goal the KGB would have been interested in rather than an arabic intelligence agency, who usually desire more direct results.

  7. I have to agree that stratfor’s youtube vids, though timely, aren’t that different from consuming various already existing media on a subject. I could be wrong but it doesn’t seem that their sources are any different from that which is available to an avid news consumer.

    HOWEVER this is the impression from their youtube vids and may not reflect the payed for information that is done for specific consumers. Those consumers would know far better than us how stratfor stacks up against others.

  8. There was an article on the Drudge Report that said some of the subscribers to Stratfor were being subjected to credit card fraud as the hackers by items that are supposedly being sent to poor people as Christmas gifts.

    I don’t know who did the hack but who ever did it they deserve prison time for their actions, hackers like anonymous are not heroes, they are punks, the difference between them and the graffiti artists is the amount of education each group has.

  9. When people steal my money I don’t really give a shit what they do with it. If the give it to charities I like or despise or spend it on whores and booze its exactly the same thing to me. They stole my money. That’s the objectionable thing. They claim to do things with it that people will think is good in order to deflect from the raw fact that they are thieves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*