To a large degree I agree with this standpoint. The problem with the Stratfor case is, that it was by and large a private research company who's only "crime" s

To a large degree I agree with this standpoint. The problem with the Stratfor case is, that it was by and large a private research company who's only "crime" so far was selling information for money. And the idea of running an investment fund based on geo political informations seems a pretty smart idea. But what investment fund doesn't want to consider potential problematic externalities in their investments? The statement including $1,200 a month paid to the informant from the Wikileak's press release seems an almost ridiculously low amount, even when payed regularly, when in contrast other media outlets are paying thousands, and in some cases even millions for access to some temporary celebrities or access to other irrelevant banalities of public life.