Stratfor does geopolitical consulting and forecasting, mostly via a series of newsletters and reports. They've got (or at the least, trade on having) good conne

Stratfor does geopolitical consulting and forecasting, mostly via a series of newsletters and reports. They've got (or at the least, trade on having) good connections inside various military and intelligence services, and in all sorts of possible trouble spots. Think of them like a very small news and research organization with only private clients. For the most part, their customers are companies who are in industries where geopolitics if off-the-beaten-track places matters. Think resource extraction in developing markets, or other regulated businesses in places where the government may not be too stable/open and the press not too free. When you get into it, there are all sorts of services/lists like Stratfor, each with their own sources and agendas. They're all generally quite expensive, low-profile, and contradictory - but one successful play off a tip from one of these newsletters would reap a reward of hundreds of times its cost. For a sample of these types of reports, check out DebkaFile [1]. It's certainly got its biases and issues, but will give you a taste of what these private intelligence newsletters are like. As for why they're on Anonymous' bad side, maybe it had to do with Startfor's coverage [2] of Anonymous' mini-campaign against the Mexican drug cartels? [1] http://www.debka.com/ http://www.debka.com/ [2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0VmatoJO8_cJ:www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111102-anonymous-vs-zetas-amid-mexico-cartel-violence+stratfor+anonymou&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0VmatoJ...