3 ms·
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. T
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoI like how people blame agent provacateurs when someone on their side does something wrong.
- nitrogen 15y agoNot 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.