3 ms·

"Stratfor is a geopolitical analysis company which helps shape a world-view for decision-makers in the existing power structure. What don't you understand about

"Stratfor is a geopolitical analysis company which helps shape a world-view for decision-makers in the existing power structure. What don't you understand about their infrastructure being a completely valid target?" And presumably you think anyone who writes a book about, say, the Nazis is therefore a Nazi sympathizer? You're expressing a desire to censor information and opinion. As you state it, Strafor is several degrees of separation from actual policy enactment. The provide analysis, which "shapes world-view". Any given fact, or analysis thereof, can potentially result in many different reactions. Is Wikipedia a valid target because it, too, "shapes world-view"? Wikileaks certainly does, so is it a valid target? How about Amnesty International? They produce reports, that provide analysis, that shape world view. Are they a valid hacking target? If you disagree with Stratfor's analysis, then produce your own analysis that proves them wrong.

justsee 15y ago
Huh? You've completely misread my comment. As have a few others it appears. Perhaps I should have written the bit you got so irate about as "Completely valid target, viewed from a number of perspectives." Just so we're clear: * I don't condone or approve of the hack. * I think it's a reckless, stupid action and the perfect gift (and almost perfectly timed) for SOPA lobbyists in Washington. * I've actually read George Friedman's Stratfor reports and found them really insightful. So please, quit with all the hyperbole and Godwin's law proving froth on HN. I was merely emphasizing that it's not surprising that Stratfor was a target in this context. It is possible to make that statement without approving of the act, you know. It's also possible to wear the hat of a particular actor to understand their motives without actually supporting them: * as a misguided, WikiLeaks-supporting hacktavist attacking Stratfor makes perfect sense. In this context you'd view Stratfor as a right-wing, US-centric outfit which "helps shape a world-view for decision-makers in the existing power strutucture". Based on Assange's theory of conspiracy, you're attacking one of the nodes in the connected graph of conspiracies. * as a government actor attacking Stratfor would be a perfectly underhand and effective way of rousing the establishment to call for an even greater curtailing of internet freedoms. You're embarrassing all the right people, but giving most of them enough time to cancel credit cards before any real damage is done. The way the announcements have been done certainly don't support the idea that whoever is responsible is wanting to maximise mayhem. I should re-iterate here that exploring possibilities does not mean the explorer supports or believes the possibilities explored. Believing this was a government actor is pretty fanciful, but falling into the trap of avoiding exploration because something is "unthinkable" is the path to naivety.

justsee 15y ago

Huh? You've completely misread my comment. As have a few others it appears. Perhaps I should have written the bit you got so irate about as "Completely valid target, viewed from a number of perspectives." Just so we're clear: * I don't condone or approve of the hack. * I think it's a reckless, stupid action and the perfect gift (and almost perfectly timed) for SOPA lobbyists in Washington. * I've actually read George Friedman's Stratfor reports and found them really insightful. So please, quit with all the hyperbole and Godwin's law proving froth on HN. I was merely emphasizing that it's not surprising that Stratfor was a target in this context. It is possible to make that statement without approving of the act, you know. It's also possible to wear the hat of a particular actor to understand their motives without actually supporting them: * as a misguided, WikiLeaks-supporting hacktavist attacking Stratfor makes perfect sense. In this context you'd view Stratfor as a right-wing, US-centric outfit which "helps shape a world-view for decision-makers in the existing power strutucture". Based on Assange's theory of conspiracy, you're attacking one of the nodes in the connected graph of conspiracies. * as a government actor attacking Stratfor would be a perfectly underhand and effective way of rousing the establishment to call for an even greater curtailing of internet freedoms. You're embarrassing all the right people, but giving most of them enough time to cancel credit cards before any real damage is done. The way the announcements have been done certainly don't support the idea that whoever is responsible is wanting to maximise mayhem. I should re-iterate here that exploring possibilities does not mean the explorer supports or believes the possibilities explored. Believing this was a government actor is pretty fanciful, but falling into the trap of avoiding exploration because something is "unthinkable" is the path to naivety.