WikiLeaks begins publishing 5 million emails from STRATFOR

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by TKDRL

 

But... but... they're just trying to get the truth!

I see you like double standards.

Oh Jesus Christ would you shut up already? Ugh.

reply to post by buddhasystem


i agreed with your previous post and gave you a star...but i have to disagree with your mechanic analogy....if your mechanic is doing a shyte job then i would feel it would be within my rights to expose his crud work with a video cam.....but to the extent of breaking into his personal email....hmmmmm.

privacy is a very fragile line nowadays...i mean look at all the fools willing to post their personal data...images...and what have you on sites like FB and Google with out any real thought.....i think sometimes it really comes down to user beware....if you don't want your info out there then never record it...and only speak to the person....IN REAL to whom you want to relay that info...then you are protected as best you can be.

Originally posted by Soshh

Below is a statement from Stratfor on release of company emails by Wikileaks:

In December, thieves compromised Stratfor's data systems and stole a large number of company emails, along with other private information of Stratfor readers, subscribers and employees. Those stolen emails apparently will be published by Wikileaks. This is a deplorable, unfortunate — and illegal — breach of privacy.

Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either. Nor will we explain the thinking that went into them. Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them.

For subscribers and friends of Stratfor, we stress that the disclosure of these emails does not mean that there has been another hack of Stratfor's computer and data systems. Stratfor's data systems, which we have worked hard to rebuild since the December hack, remain secure and protected.

As with last year's hack, the release of these emails is a direct attack on Stratfor. This is another attempt to silence and intimidate the company, and one we reject. Under the continued leadership of founder and Chief Executive Officer George Friedman, Stratfor will not be silenced and will continue to publish the geopolitical analysis our friends and subscribers have come to rely upon.

Full Statement

Stratfor Executive: "Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations"

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm not engaging in that aspect of this debate as I dont know how I feel.

On one hand the people that should be protecting us are often compromised, which is why groups like Anonymous exist (at least partially). If the cops are corrupt you end up with mob rule.

On the other hand, you're right. How'd we all feel if anonymous targeted us for some reason. Privacy is really an essential part of happiness. We all need some boundaries to feel ... Safe.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

i agreed with your previos post and gave you a star...but i have to disagree with your mechanic analogy....if your mechanic is doing a shyte job then i would feel it would be within my rights to expose his crud work with a video cam.....but to the extent of breaking into his personal email....hmmmmm.

Yeah well maybe my comparison was too crude. But you get the idea.

privacy is a very fragile line nowadays...

This is very true and I think it sets a dangerous precedent that PII gets stolen and people think is all good and dandy, and cheer and all. That's a slippery slope. If it becomes accepted in the society that it's OK to get your personal data hung out to dry for everyone to see... Oh well.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

i agreed with your previous post and gave you a star...but i have to disagree with your mechanic analogy....if your mechanic is doing a shyte job then i would feel it would be within my rights to expose his crud work with a video cam.....but to the extent of breaking into his personal email....hmmmmm.

privacy is a very fragile line nowadays...i mean look at all the fools willing to post their personal data...images...and what have you on sites like FB and Google with out any real thought.....i think sometimes it really comes down to user beware....if you don't want your info out there then never record it...and only speak to the person....IN REAL to whom you want to relay that info...then you are protected as best you can be.

edit on 032929p://f27Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

Make up your mind, a while ago you said WTF about hacking, and twisting the truth was more a worry. Elsewhere you mentioned about inventive e-mails about a woman who did not exist, it's all there. Why invent an e-mail about another woman? that's rubbish, an 'effing picture is enough, invented or otherwise, and is the same thing.

How about this angle? When a contractor aids the US government in crapping on our constitution, the are just as guilty of removing rights and freedom that it was written to endow and protect! Or are you in agreement with GWB when he stated, "it's a (snip) piece of paper?

reply to post by buddhasystem


This stratfor is a private intelligence gathering agency who do ANYTHING to get information,,, its all sketchy stuff, bribes, and spy games, and weapons and drug trading,,,,,,, why should anonomouys a private intelligence gathering agency not be able to gather intelligence on stratfor? at all costs!

there are obviously no rules or morals for the military, and secret services, SNIP them!

reply to post by buddhasystem


As a parent i am always trying to instill in my kids the internet is a street and on the street you would never give out any personal details to anyone you just bump into....So be safe on the street at all times and do not put out any info that can be used against you as then you will always be safe.

being streetwise applies to all aspects of life....and obvious this inteligence agecy itself was not streetwise now were they.....they are now suffering from their own lack of protection...and they will pay for it.....is it wrong for me to go through their stuff and see what sort of mess they were selling to others for their own personal gain....are they squeaky clean and were they themselves involved in hacking to obtain info of which they would be seeking....i would guess not.....

do two wrongs make a right...i would guess not...but now that the info is out there...is it responsible for people to go through and analyse the data so that we may see what my be crimnal offenses against the commomn public...I would have to say yes...and if we find criminal activity on the part of this company....then i would say that would be fine too to use it against them.....just as anon may have used illegal tactics to get this info....stratfor may have been using illegal info gathering to supply their clients with the info they may have paid this company to seek......I would say a messy situation all around in my books.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

This stratfor is a private intelligence gathering agency who do ANYTHING to get information,,, its all sketchy stuff, bribes, and spy games, and weapons and drug trading,,,,,,, why should anonomouys a private intelligence gathering agency not be able to gather intelligence on stratfor? at all costs!

there are obviously no rules or morals for the military, and secret services, SNIP them!

edit on 27-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

[/

edit on 27-2-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

This stratfor is a private intelligence gathering agency who do ANYTHING to get information,,, its all sketchy stuff, bribes, and spy games, and weapons and drug trading,,,,,,, why should anonomouys a private intelligence gathering agency not be able to gather intelligence on stratfor? at all costs!

there are obviously no rules or morals for the military, and secret services, SNIP them!

edit on 27-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

So, you are saying that anonymous did not gather intelligence on Stratfor?

Have you not read what anon did to Stratfor? If hacking into their database, and leaking 5 million emails isn't "gathering" then you need your frigging head checked.

reply to post by amongus


no im saying they did, and im glad,,,,, i am flabbergasted at people defending stratfor...... they must really love their james bond and call of duty.


intelligence agencies, militaries, terrorists are all the same idiot.... they are conflicting with each other,,,, the majority of the worlds population just wants to live in peace, love their family and neighbor, work, eat, sleep, and enjoy their lives.

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

This stratfor is a private intelligence gathering agency who do ANYTHING to get information,,, its all sketchy stuff, bribes, and spy games, and weapons and drug trading,,,,,,, why should anonomouys a private intelligence gathering agency not be able to gather intelligence on stratfor? at all costs!

there are obviously no rules or morals for the military, and secret services, SNIP them!

edit on 27-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

So, you are saying that anonymous did not gather intelligence on Stratfor?

Have you not read what anon did to Stratfor? If hacking into their database, and leaking 5 million emails isn't "gathering" then you need your frigging head checked.

edit on 27-2-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)

No, you said anon should have gathered intel on strat. I did not misread you.

What did you mean to say then?

reply to post by smurfy


wow you dont get it at all on what i have said...you have misinterpreted the whole point yet again....i am against the aquiring of the emails....but now that the info is out there it would be good to disect it in a responsible matter and not twist the emails for sensationalisation effect.

A simple thing really.....basic if i do say so meself......you said i did not have a premise in which i based what i was saying....but if you read early on in this thread you would have seen in the first few postings after the emails were released how they were being sensationalised....rather than reading them in the context of how they were meant....geeez.

then i even said after i sensationalized the lunchbox email.....how it should be taken as simple inter office banter....pls read what was being stated...as it would help.....I have stated my views on the hacking issue....is hacking personal emails ethical or correct....simple answer......no.

but now that they are public domain would it be correct to handle them in a responsible manner....yes it would IMO

you see i have no problem simplifying things....now when i have posted a piece from one of the emails i post it....i cite it.....and then put the source of the email....i also try to find out a bit on the sender and the reciever as it does help to validate it's own validity does it not?

if your have been reading them yourself...then you might understand what i am saying........most of them are internal replies within the company....of their sources supplying a feedback of info from sources back to the company...also there are emails of inter office matters which gives insight to the inner workings of the company.

Are these pleasent ethical people....from what i have read so far....(aprrox 100) out of the 200 posted so far i would say they were not and they themselves would manipulate the data they were taking in to satisfy their customers requests......and that is just my opinion.

reply to post by amongus



This stratfor is a private intelligence gathering agency who do ANYTHING to get information,,, its all sketchy stuff, bribes, and spy games, and weapons and drug trading,,,,,,,
why should anonomouys a private intelligence gathering agency not be able to gather intelligence on stratfor? at all costs!
there are obviously no rules or morals for the military, and secret services, SNIP them!



to the people defending stratfor,, im asking why should anonyomous not be able to ruthlessly obtain information from stratfor,,,,, by equating anonomouys to stratfor in relevency and exceptability



how would you interpret or not mis read this .....

i am flabbergasted at people defending stratfor...... they must really love their james bond and call of duty.


intelligence agencies, militaries, terrorists are all the same idiot.... they are conflicting with each other,,,, the majority of the worlds population just wants to live in peace, love their family and neighbor, work, eat, sleep, and enjoy their lives.

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

This stratfor is a private intelligence gathering agency who do ANYTHING to get information,,, its all sketchy stuff, bribes, and spy games, and weapons and drug trading,,,,,,, why should anonomouys a private intelligence gathering agency not be able to gather intelligence on stratfor? at all costs!

there are obviously no rules or morals for the military, and secret services, SNIP them!

edit on 27-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

So, you are saying that anonymous did not gather intelligence on Stratfor?

Have you not read what anon did to Stratfor? If hacking into their database, and leaking 5 million emails isn't "gathering" then you need your frigging head checked.

edit on 27-2-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)

I agree with that in part, the 'leaking' by Anon however, is universal to everyone, and for free. That is a BIG difference!

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Draft Date: 2012-02-26 19:02:07 It is with great personal disappointment I have to inform you that I will resign from my position as CEO for Stratfor to immediate effect. Please rest assured that this decision was not an easy. But in the light of the recent events, especially the release of our company emails by WikiLeaks, I have decided that stepping down is in the best interest of Stratfor and its customer base. I want to emphasize that this will have no effect on Stratfor's business or its members and we will continue to provide state-of-the-art intelligence services. Regarding the latest breach, Stratfor is fully in control of the situation However, while I cannot take any personal responsibility for this incident, I still have to admit that mistakes have been made on our side. To be clear: We certainly do not condone any criminal activities by groups like Anonymous or other hackers. This is theft and we will continue to cooperate with law enforcement to bring those responsible to justice. But we must acknowledge that this incident would not have been possible if Stratfor had implemented stronger data protection mechanisms - which will be the case from now on. Indeed we will immediately move to implement the latest, and most comprehensive, data security measures. While I played no role in our technical operations, as the company's CEO I do accept full responsibility thus will resign from my position effective immediately. Again, my sincerest apologies for this whole unfortunate incident. Sincerely, George Friedman Link Tags: CEO of Stratfor resigns after Wikileaks releases emails

http:///w0uQ1XX1

I love how Stratfor is failing at damage control on epic levels. The CEO resigns in humility.... then denies all accusations and spins it. Then this D bag changes his mind lol www.forbes.com...

reply to post by smurfy


ok i am going to paraphrase here ok...are you saying because it is stolen and then released for free to the public it is ok to hack into emails.....Is that what you saying or am i misreading what your saying here.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


What i love in that statement is the term....state of the art inteligence .....OMG.....has he even been reading what was leaked....heck the members here at ATS do a better job of source citation.

The company is a inteligence based company that got severely hacked......now if i was a client...would i want to put my trust in them....and this is just from the first 200 emails that has been released......wait until we get upto say 100,000....or 700,000 or even 2,2000,000.....i think he is in for a suprise to say the least....i mean just in the 100 i have read .....their material sourcing is sooooooo sketchy it is incredulous.....but hey .....they should keep on using them unsourced blogs for their gathering as they obviously were making money....but not putting it back into the security of their own systems.

Another take and an interesting read.

Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously
m.theatlantic.com...

Assange would probably like to regain some of his former glory; Wikileaks' 2010 release of video from a U.S. army helicopter in Iraq sparked a small international incident and won praise from much of the media, including me. What better way to do it than by taking on an easy target and then claiming you'd exposed an international corporate-imperialist conspiracy? Stratfor is not the shadow-CIA that Wikileaks seems to believe it is, but much of the blame for this mistake actually lies with Stratfor itself.

The group has spent over a decade trying to convince the world that it is a for-hire, cutting-edge intel firm with tentacles everywhere. Before their marketing campaign fooled Anonymous, it fooled wealthy clients; before it fooled clients, it hooked a couple of reporters. A breathless October 15, 2001, Barron's cover story called Stratfor "a private quasi-CIA," the evidence for which appears to be this quote from Stratfor chief George Friedman: "The CIA has to spend thousands of dollars a month to have an agent in, say, Teheran or Peshawar to monitor local newspapers or political developments that we can find on the Internet within a few hours." In other words, they have Google. But Stratfor's first big break had come in 1999 with a spate of glowing articles such as this January piece in Time, which reported Stratfor's "striking" theory that the U.S. bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was "actually designed to mask a failed U.S.-backed coup." That theory, like so much of Stratfor's "intelligence," was discredited long ago.