WikiLeaks begins publishing 5 million emails from Stratfor

Like other HN members, I'm also a Strafor subscriber and my details and credit card information were leaked, so I have a vested interest in this issue.<p>At first I was pretty supportive of Stratfor, and thought that Anonymous attacking Stratfor was completely stupid.<p>However, a couple of things from the news release caught my eye. I guess I was naive, but I believed that Strafor was more like a news agency, and they would do their best work to uncover information, analyze breaking situations, and supply information to its members.<p>However, from reading the news release from Wikileaks, I get the vague sense that maybe Stratfor was gathering a lot more information than I thought, using it to their advantage, and then throwing a bone to its subscribers every now and then, just enough to keep them subscribing and generating income.<p>It certainly seems like there's a lot more going under the covers than I anticipated. The comment about "Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase." makes it seem like Friedman is more than willing to make anyone their pawns, including subscribers.<p>Also, the idea of their StratCap Fund really kind of makes me question exactly what they are. I thought their motivations were really about analysis and information, but I kind of don't believe that now. At first, I didn't think the emails themselves were important, but now I'm definitely going to be keeping a close eye on whatever gets turned up from this point on.

I've read STRATFOR's intel summaries / newsletters for a while - and I generally support Wikileak's and Anonymous's <i>goals</i>, if not always their specific <i>tactics</i>. So this is grabbing my interest, both personally and professionally. If nothing else, it will be interesting to consider ways to apply their methodology to the sort of threat intelligence we work with in network security.<p>(Side note: it's entirely possible to support Wikileaks and still think Assange is kind of a jerk.)

An interesting article popped up on G+ the other day, outlining the effects the Cablegate release has had:<p><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/28-2" rel="nofollow">https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/28-2</a><p>TLDR: US Government got mud on its face, but dictators around the world faired much worse, and the fallout for them is ongoing.

Oh, the irony: <a href="http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/866124_random-business-idea-network-security-.html" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/866124_random-business-ide...</a>

Buried in the mass of text at <a href="http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html</a> is this interesting thing:<p>"WikiLeaks is about to launch a distributed, encrypted "Facebook for revolutionaries" (<a href="https://wlfriends.org/" rel="nofollow">https://wlfriends.org/</a>)."<p><a href="https://wlfriends.org/about#whatfowlis" rel="nofollow">https://wlfriends.org/about#whatfowlis</a><p>I see no evidence it's truely distributed though.

How is Stratfor fundamentally different from Wikileaks? They both obtain leaked information, often by methods of questionable legality. Stratfor uses the information to make reports and newsletters they sells to governments, businesses, and ordinary curious members of the public, whereas Wikileaks releases it for free but in ways that seemed designed to promote Assange, but I wouldn't say these are fundamental differences.<p>If Wikileaks were truly about bringing secret information to light, wouldn't they be protecting other leak organizations, rather that exposing their sources?

Anyone got a full dump? I want to run the from/to's through a network analysis to understand who the 'supernodes' or connectors are at stratfor.

One of the more interesting things to emerge from this is Strafor's failed attempt to create a hedge fund that would use their intelligence to invest in government bonds, currency, etc.

Anyone commenting about the supposed irony of Wikileaks putting an embargo on releasing this information before an agreed date is being naive.<p>At one point in time Wikileak's stated mission was just to leak information, and this was done without — comparatively — much fanfare.<p>What we see now is a change of tactics. If the ultimate goal is not simply to leak information, but to effect change, then what is the best way to do this?<p>A coordinated, simultaneous release has a better chance of being noticed by more people and thus a greater chance of effecting some meaningful change.<p>We can disagree on tactics. Assuming you believe their goals are reasonable, what else could they do? I'm not suggesting there are not other options, but I rarely read any suggestions of a better way.

Still think this is misguided. STRATFOR isn't the CIA; they like to pretend for marketing and what not, but they are obviously not the enemy here.

It's not without a sense of irony that WikiLeaks puts an embargo on the press release and asks that news organizations not leak the story beforehand.

I found this one particularly fun to read: <a href="http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1239829_fyi-.html" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1239829_fyi-.html</a> (Sorry, it's a doc).<p>A glossary of the intelligence jargon that they use, written in an entertaining style.

Took a peek at a few emails. It looks like some of their 'analysts' are what people call 'social media experts'.<p>I was beginning to wonder what kind of job that skill set can land you.

Unfortunately, I don't see any timetable for release of the entire corpus; if they're going to release 167 emails per day, that's going to take 82 years.

hmm.. so no one commented on pastebin being used as a newsletter CMS. i guess this is common practice? i guess this is in tune with those stories about using git as publishing platform

I hope no one is surprised by this. If governments are willing to spend billions upon billions for intelligence, why wouldn't private corporations. Hell I've throughout of doing this a few times - then I think about the work it entails.<p>I bet there'll bee som interesting, actionable material in there.

The one issue concerning London Olympics is Dow Chemicals sponsoring it, but there has been opposition in India and NGO for their role in Bhopal Gas Tragedy in 1984.<p>If stratfor was gathering intelligence and buying silence for Dow, then it would be indictment and self implication

Where is the data itself? I can't find a link to it, possibly it's not available yet?

Well... this is going to be interesting. Forgive my ignorance, but this feels like its going to hurt a lot of people.

The charge levelled @manning doesn't concern you all?

Are you wankers still intent on the prossecustion[spelling] of Manning?

manning must die/pay: What kind of backward society would prosecute this?

Manning perhaps had the guts to remind you all of your constitution. If you are prepared to ignore your constitution then I will ignore all the things that make U.S.A. great.

So which one is it?<p>* Fuck yeah, america!!!! killing our own troups just because * Fuck yeah, amerida!!?! killing everyone just because.

&#62; The material contains privileged information about the US government's attacks against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and Stratfor's own attempts to subvert WikiLeaks.<p>I'm getting tired of Wikileak's bullshit. Either you have proof about this and you should just publish it in a pastebin, or you shut up. You don't publish 5 million emails and hint that there is material in there that could take down governments.

It will take some time until people will filter interesting stuff out.