8 ms·

900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. To release the emails of private individuals and firms w

• angersock 15y ago
  It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. It would be educational if ordinary citizens expected their communications to be completely private without taking reasonable measure to assure same. This is a great lesson in security. I supported the wikileaks 'collateral damage' video leak, because I think its important that our government be transparent and its citizen understand the ramifications of going to war. But this, I can't support it. One of the ramifications of going to war, like it or not, is increased scrutiny. This is a weaker form of the "collateral damage" that our politicians and bureaucrats routinely write off.
  • angersock 15y ago
    Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?
    • danilocampos 15y ago
      > It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read my mail regardless of whether I locked the door that morning or not. I'm not losing any sleep over this particular leak, just saying, what I quoted is probably their beef.
      • angersock 15y ago
        I mean, that's an interesting question, right? I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If I burned your letter, I've absolutely committed a wrong, but I didn't do that. If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim.
        • earbitscom 15y ago
          Could the same not be said for having windows made of glass? You did not build your entire house of steel and deadbolt locks, so you have allowed this possibility and therefore I am entitled to come into your house.
        • danilocampos 15y ago
          That may be true, but most jurisdictions recognize an inherent right to physical privacy which isn't lost based on how securely the premises are sealed. So, the truly problematic part is the trespassing and/or burglary (illicitly entering a building, regardless of destruction or theft of property, meets the test). The law around extracting information from a physical place is something I don't really know about. But either way, we have a parallel in the unlawful access of shit that isn't yours.
        • noahc 15y ago
          You're argument is essentially the "She deserved to be raped" argument. I understand that your argument is a bit more nuanced than this because of the idea of harm you introduced. But at it's simpliest core you argue that "Hey, you made it easier and the possibility exists..." It's the same way with rape. "Hey she was wearing a short skirt and was drunk, the possibility exists." We should be able to to agree that because I make something easier for you to do that doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it. If you want to have this debate it shouldn't be about the ease of which someone allows another to take a particular action. Instead, we should debate about if we believe we should secure in papers and from who. In a world in which non-political actors have more power than political actors that's an interesting question!
    • earbitscom 15y ago
      The post was clear that they did not do this to prove the security flaws. They did it because they believe this information should be made public for the good of the public. Nearly everyone in this forum opposes SOPA's attempt to shut down websites without a trial. Effectively subpoenaing private communication between suspected criminals without a court order and making those emails public requires much the same infringement of basic rights. So you have to ask yourself, "Do I approve of private citizens and organizations taking actions such as these if they believe they're helping fight crime?" And then ask yourself whether you're talking about the release of these emails, or SOPA.
      • deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      • jonhendry 15y ago
        " "Do I approve of private citizens and organizations taking actions such as these if they believe they're helping fight crime?"" Crime? If every fringe nutcase gets to decide what is crime, and act on that, then it's likely you've committed somebody's idea of a crime, and so has everyone else. So far the accusations of Stratfor's evil have been about as meaningful as the British people who threatened a pediatrician, ignorantly thinking she was a pedophile. I don't see anyone railing against the crimes of Jane's, or the Economist Intelligence Unit. Probably because they know nothing whatsoever about the industry and don't even know those organizations exist.
        • jaylevitt 15y ago
          I think you're in violent agreement, and that this was the point of "if THEY believe they're helping fight crime".
    • garethsprice 15y ago
      It's pointless, causing a lot of people a lot of trouble with no clear upside. Even the Pastebin admits that Stratfor doesn't seem to be involved in anything shady, but they're going to release all their e-mails anyway just in case. It's a witch hunt. There is no best case scenario from releasing this data. The point that even security companies can't guarantee security has been made, all that releasing the data can do is turn public sentiment against Antisec and towards "whatever it takes to stop this kind of thing".
      • jonhendry 15y ago
        "The point that even security companies can't guarantee security has been made" But in their nerd rage tunnel vision they still haven't figured out that not all security is internet security, and not all security-related companies are internet security companies. There are valid non-computer matters of security, such as "Is the Lord's Resistance Army active around this particular village at this time?" which would be crucial if, say, you're sending some doctors in to work in that village. Or "How active are the Maoist militants in India?" Basically, the Anonymous people don't have the faintest clue what Stratfor does, or why you would turn to them or similar firms for information. "It's a witch hunt." And a publicity stunt.
• blurbytree 15y ago
  And, it's the reason governments will clamp down and regulate the internet more and more. This is why we can't have nice things.
  • mike-cardwell 15y ago
    Hacking is already illegal. What could governments have done to prevent this?
    • drcube 15y ago
      "More laws!! Think of the children!"
    • brc 15y ago
      With respect, it's an awful question. Awful because some politician might read it and think - yes, what can I do to prevent it?
    • frio 15y ago
      Introduce SOPA/PIPA/a variant thereof, and takedown/prosecute anyone hosting this content.
    • TomOfTTB 15y ago
      What they could, and are discussing doing, is defining Hacking as terrorism. I heard this from my own congressman's mouth and that's why this scares me. Because there were a log of Senators and Congressman subscribed to Stratfor and this is exactly the type of incident that might push them to act.
      • paganel 15y ago
        > What they could, and are discussing doing, is defining Hacking as terrorism. I heard this from my own congressman's mouth and that's why this scares me. Because there were a log of Senators and Congressman subscribed to Stratfor and this is exactly the type of incident that might push them to act. I'm not a US citizen and I don't live in the States, even though I am a huge admirer of how your political system was first set up (the Founding Fathers and all that), but all I want to say is that if you, as a citizen, have started to be afraid just at the mere mention of something possibly passing into "terrorism" territory only because one of your elected represantives hinted about that then it means they've already won.
• mcphilip 15y ago
  It seems the same argument you're making about it being distasteful to release the emails without any a priori evidence of wrongdoing could have been applied to the HBGary Federal incident, although Anonymous was provoked in that case since Aaron Barr claimed to be able to expose the "leaders" of the movement. Was it distasteful to leak the 44,000 emails acquired? If so, was the important information gleaned from the emails exposing all manner of shady dealings in the white hat industry[1] not enough to vindicate the attacks? [1]http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/22340513034/leaked-hbgary-documents-show-plan-to-spread-wikileaks-propaganda-bofa-attack-glenn-greenwald.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/22340513034/leaked...
  • ge0rg 15y ago
    IMO the problem here is that this leak will probably make whistleblowers easily identifiable, thus causing legal actions against "the good ones" (think Bradley Manning). This makes the case more comparable to the cables (which were filtered before release) than to hbgary.
    • sigzero 15y ago
      Bradley Manning was not one of the "good ones". Sorry.
      • ge0rg 15y ago
        I yield to your well-founded argument. P.S: I consider publication of information about war cruelty and international political pressure as benefiting for mankind, ethically good and thus conforming to the "hacker ethics".
        • TomOfTTB 15y ago
          How about this... Bradley Manning posted two types of information. War Footage and Diplomatic Cables. The War Footage was unpleasant to watch but didn't document anything that wasn't already well known (at least to anyone who paid attention to Iraqi Civilian Casualty Numbers). As such no change has been made by the government. The second group, diplomatic cables, actually caused harm. The whole point of diplomacy is to avoid war. Manning leaked info (such as state department officials' personal opinion of other world leaders) that made it harder to deal with them. Hence making diplomacy harder and war more likely. I think the larger point with the Stratfor hack and Manning's actions is it's dumb to release indiscriminately. Good reporting has always involved inside sources but those reporters targeted the actual corruption and only released that.
• danilocampos 15y ago
  Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if these people exist outside of due process, what's left? This, I guess. There are lot of communications in this bundle that are probably pretty mundane, sent and received by people who show up for jury duty and take traffic school when they run a red light. And it sucks that they've lost their privacy on this. On the other hand, because of Strafor's mission, you can be almost certain that a handful of messages will reveal information where disclosing it is emphatically a public good. Will we find wrongdoing? Downright illegality? I'm not sure. But I am pretty sure that actions like this are the last reasonably potent check on power we have left.
  • earbitscom 15y ago
    So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral.
    • JonnieCache 15y ago
      and yet I bet you think That seems slightly unfair. Unless of course you've performed a comprehensive background check on danilocampos' comment history. But I bet you haven't ;)
      • earbitscom 15y ago
        You're right. That's not cool. But I haven't really run into anyone who thinks we should shut down sites without due process, particularly on HN. Even still, I shouldn't jump to conclusions.
    • danilocampos 15y ago
      > So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral. You feel as though "things like the Pirate Bay" are run by people who are so wealthy and powerful that they've completely subverted criminal justice and international law? I had no idea Dick Cheney was running torrent sites. The bit where he sent those stooges to sit in a Swedish court was a nice touch, I guess.
• Joakal 15y ago
  1) The Stratfor seems to have an impression of being a media organisation akin to Wikileaks. They talk to many contacts, don't form any policy except stories. They pass the stories onto governments/corporations. 2) An another Anonymous group says it's not them and they don't support it because Stratfor doesn't appear bad 3) That same other Anonymous group also warned that these are probably hacker [agent] provocateurs because it may just as well expose honest people who are exposing problems to Stratfor. The original aim was to expose the crimes of the government(s) and corporations by looking at the exchanges between contacts. 4) I tend to agree with you.
  • jonhendry 15y ago
    " They pass the stories onto governments/corporations." And non-profits, and NGOs, and humanitarian organizations, who need or want information about places that don't get much coverage in the New York Times until the shit has already hit the fan. Places where maybe they have people working.
    • steve8918 15y ago
      And regular folks like me who are willing to pay ~100/yr for indepth, unbiased news reporting that you can't find anywhere else because it doesn't concern Kim Kardashian or Lindsay Lohan.
  • philwelch 15y ago
    I like how people blame agent provacateurs when someone on their side does something wrong.
    • nitrogen 15y ago
      Not to defend the practice of claiming sabotage or subterfuge when accused, but it's a time-honored tradition held by all "sides," including the likes of the RIAA/MPAA, governments, etc.
• funkah 15y ago
  That's the thing about leaks like this -- they happen without regard for your sense of propriety. Or anyone's.
• grandalf 15y ago
  My email was obtained, and my credit card #. I used to subscribe to Stratfor to get another (more in-depth, geopolitical) perspective on the news. Stratfor has sources whose anonymity (like with Wikileaks) is important. If indeed the breach does reveal people who have helped Stratfor obtain information for its stories, it will be akin to if the group had hacked Wikileaks and outed Bradley Manning before he was caught by the government.
  • lallysingh 15y ago
    Yeah, same here -- I'm a subscriber too. But, Manning got caught b/c he bragged to someone who turned him in. I don't think Wikileaks was hacked.
    • maigret 15y ago
      The parent didn't state that about Manning. He wrote "if".
• jonshea 15y ago
  You mean “without any prior evidence”. The phrase “a priori” means “by reason or deduction alone, without empirical evidence”. The phrase “a priori evidence” is an oxymoron.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • electromagnetic 15y ago
    It's the internet, if you don't start adding random i's to words, people will think you're new to the place. Don't forget the Viri, or even Virii.
    • jonshea 15y ago
      Plurals of Latin / Greek words used in English: http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxplural.html http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxplural.html One of my favorite pages.
    • scythe 15y ago
      I believe the proper Latin phrase, to evoke appropriate pretension and bravado, would be prima facie.
• sigzero 15y ago
  I agree totally. Situational ethics abounds it seems.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• electromagnetic 15y ago
  I have to back you on this. This doesn't sit in any moral grey area. This is nothing but corruption. If people genuinely have no problem with the outing of millions of private correspondences, then they should be publicly offering their own correspondences up for inspection. If you're against SOPA, you should be against tyranny like this. This is the tyranny of the minority, of anarchists who aren't doing this for moral value or just cause. This wasn't even done for retaliation or idiot bashing like hbgary. This was done for no reason but to cause harm and mayhem. I believe in the transparency of government, which is why I can turn my eye when wikileaks was doing their thing. I can't turn my eye if someone's raiding my neighbours mailbox and I hope no one else here would either, but I think it's pretty scummy that people here are supporting this. Sorry folks but if people here aren't outraged by this, then say hello to your new HN subreddit.
  • devs1010 15y ago
    "then they should be publicly offering their own correspondences up for inspection" We already are, the government has made it fairly clear that they have the "right" to read anyone's emails they please due to their bullshit "war on terror", its about time we get the same chance to do it to them
    • jasondrowley 15y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that government employees' correspondence with a private company is confidential.
      • quanticle 15y ago
        Is it? If it is, it shouldn't be. If the matter concerns clear and present threats to national security, then why is a private firm involved at all? If there is no clear and present threat, then why bother with secrecy?
        • devs1010 15y ago
          We need to take back the concept of the government serving the people, they are our employees, we pay taxes that go towards their salaries, last time I checked, my boss has the ability to read emails I send from a company email address.
• BaseBand 15y ago
  I would have to follow the twisted logic, Do you really expect these people to have not committed any crimes over the entire course of the emails? I would have more of a issue if this was personal correspondence but this is dealing with large US institutions and people that deal with policy.
  • forensic 15y ago
    Policy makers don't get intelligence from Stratfor! For fuck's sake! You people are truly clueless! "Policy makers" get their intelligence from the CIA. Duh! No government relies on Stratfor, it would be grossly irresponsible. Stratfor makes most of its money from corporations that operate in foreign countries and are not large enough or important enough to have CIA-access. This means corporations OUTSIDE the military-industrial-security complex. Anyone inside this complex uses Stratfor for light reading at most. The real intelligence is classified and is available to megacorps that collaborate with the CIA.
    • BaseBand 15y ago
      Nice wording, "You people are truly clueless?". Well one thing is clear, whatever kind of opposite world you live in large corporations don't have any influence over government policy. There is no one on that client list who deals with anything policy related at all! The interesting things about company emails is that they tend to not communicate to the outside world. Yes "Policy Makers" only get intelligence from the CIA. Since out of the huge intelligence budget the only agency we have that deals with matters outside of the US is the CIA. Think tanks and other non governmental institutions are for people other than "Policy Makers" I hope I'm keeping up the theme of saying completely backwards stuff! Or that you just....clueless.
      • forensic 15y ago
        You're just flat out ignorant regarding the nature of Stratfor. It's not a think tank! It's not a big corporation! Stratfor serves medium and small corporations! Hack the CFR. Hack the Brookings institute. Hack the RAND corporation. Hack the DoD. Hack the Tavistock institute and the Club of Rome and the Heritage foundation. Hack the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller foundation and hack Harvard and hack Yale and hack the New York Times. Hack Monsanto and KBR and Blackwater and GM and GE and News Corp. Hack the RIAA and hack AIPAC. Hack Blue Cross and Pfizer. Hack Goldman Sachs and Timothy Geithner. Stratfor does not fall into this category. They are an unbiased high quality news source that serves small and medium businesses. They are not directly attached to the military industrial complex. What you're clueless about is Stratfor. It's a small business with 70 employees. It's not a think tank and it's work even exposes the influence of the megacorps that run your country. It exposed the influence that international finance was having on the Euro crisis in a completely unbiased way, for instance. The rest of the media wouldn't even touch the Euro crisis with anything resembling a realistic appraisal. Stratfor just cut right to the heart. High quality journalism for about the same price as The Economist. Stratfor was on the good team. Anonymous just committed a friendly fire incident.
• ig1 15y ago
  There's a significant difference between business and personal emails. If you write anything in a business email you should assume that it may become public at some point in the future. Both your employer and the recipients employer have the right to read it, as does any company that acquires either party. The email may also be demanded by the government for a variety of reason or by a court in pursuit of a civil case. Business emails have much weaker privacy protection than personal emails because it's assumed that from the very beginning that any privacy arises from the commercial implications of the contents rather than the inherent privacy that you have when two private individuals are discussing a personal matter.
• naner 15y ago
  900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. That is a reflection of the community this was posted in (/r/WikiLeaks). If you look at the other Stratfor discussions on reddit they tend to be more balanced.
• quanticle 15y ago
  Powerful actors must be held accountable for the use of their action. To believe otherwise means that might makes right. Private actors, whether they be firms or well-connected individuals are (and always have) attempted to influence those holding power. It is in the public interest to expose power and influence-mongering. Government, by virtue of its power over individual citizens needs to be held to a higher standard of openness. Private parties should be held to the same standard, when they choose to deal with the government in a manner that may influence its actions.
  • forensic 15y ago
    So hack lobbyists. Hack Halliburton. Hack Wall Street. Hack the MPAA. But Stratfor? One of the highest quality unbiased news sources available to the public? One of the only news outlets free from mainstream media spin, with a fanatical devotion to a just-the-facts reporting style?
    • olefoo 15y ago
      Yours is the first post on the topic to make me think that the _agent_provocateur_ accusation might in fact be true.
• rhizome 15y ago
  It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. What do you mean, "if" the tables were turned?
• yaix 15y ago
  "Influencial individuals" can do harm to society at large (and have done it quite a lot in the past years). They are "public persons" and must undergo check and control by the society. That is absolutely not comparable with private individuals who's actions are very unlikely to have any damaging impact on the general society. That's the difference.
• bballbackus 15y ago
  This is due to one of my least favorite traits about reddit: the hivemind criminalizes the rich and powerful by defining them as naturally evil. I don't know how this mindset got started on reddit; I would love to find out. It seems to be their way of justifying being middle/lower class by saying the reason the rich/powerful succeed is due the rich/powerful not having a heart and gaming people of their money.
  • Joakal 15y ago
    It's called tall poppy syndrome.
    • andrewcooke 15y ago
      not really - tall poppy syndrome is when people of genuine merit are criticised. to apply that to the rich and powerful you have to also assume that merit is rewarded by wealth. in other words: you're assuming that rich people are wonderful and that criticism is therefore unfair; others are sceptical that the wealth and privilege is justified and so feel that the criticsm is fair. so the difference is political. labeling it "tall poppy syndrome" is a framing technique to "smuggle in" the assumption that wealth is deserved. and to answer the question of "where it came from" - questioning the right to wealth is not a new idea. if you think it's something specific to reddit then you might consider learning more about alternative political viewpoints.
• noonespecial 15y ago
  “In normal times, evil should be fought by good, but in times like this, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil”
• sajidnizami 15y ago
  In my opinion, just like politicians are worthy of public scrutiny, the people in power should be too. If a person's actions and views affect population, they should be known to the people who it effects. Having said that, it becomes difficult to draw the line. Stuff like this does have potential to create anarchy, which doesn't benefit anyone.