8 ms·

Like other HN members, I'm also a Strafor subscriber and my details and credit card information were leaked, so I have a vested interest in this issue. At firs

Like other HN members, I'm also a Strafor subscriber and my details and credit card information were leaked, so I have a vested interest in this issue. At first I was pretty supportive of Stratfor, and thought that Anonymous attacking Stratfor was completely stupid. However, a couple of things from the news release caught my eye. I guess I was naive, but I believed that Strafor was more like a news agency, and they would do their best work to uncover information, analyze breaking situations, and supply information to its members. However, from reading the news release from Wikileaks, I get the vague sense that maybe Stratfor was gathering a lot more information than I thought, using it to their advantage, and then throwing a bone to its subscribers every now and then, just enough to keep them subscribing and generating income. It certainly seems like there's a lot more going under the covers than I anticipated. The comment about "Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase." makes it seem like Friedman is more than willing to make anyone their pawns, including subscribers. Also, the idea of their StratCap Fund really kind of makes me question exactly what they are. I thought their motivations were really about analysis and information, but I kind of don't believe that now. At first, I didn't think the emails themselves were important, but now I'm definitely going to be keeping a close eye on whatever gets turned up from this point on.

JumpCrisscross 15y ago
I used to be a corporate subscriber (tens of thousands a month) and personal subscriber (a hundred or so a year). Some of the intel I commissioned at corporate worked its way into retail analysis; this was their policy. STRATFOR is getting heat since they're well known in the public because of their philosophy that everyone should have access to top-grade intelligence. I don't understand how attacking the guys who find secret information, analyse it, and sell it to businesses, governments, and the public promotes an open society. Now we have shifted our business to Kroll and Dilligence and similar firms. They are stoutly anti-public. Not coincidentally their IT security is also top-notch. What was once public will now be very, very secret (Kroll has a 30-day email full deletion policy). I worked for an investment bank. Found their idea of a STRATFOR hedge fund funny, but not evil. Another way to woo colleagues over from the public side while giving themselves a marketing tool against finance firms by being able to point to a performance trail. Mis-guided, perhaps, but given that Google basically runs a prop desk off its cash pile and has no problem with it (many corporate treasuries operate for profit)suggests it may not be an end-of-the-world conflict of interest. Note: I hold no bad blood for Wikileaks; they're informatior brokers. But I do judge the guys who hacked them. Though I judge STRATFOR as well for being so cavalier with their security.
- steve8918 15y ago
  I guess the question that I have is: Is Stratfor shaping the information that it is supplying to its retail subscribers, for whatever reason (either for the benefit of their corporate subscribers, or for themselves)? It certainly seems like this is something that Friedman and Stratfor are capable of doing. Is it possible that they are employing propaganda techniques through their retail arm in order to get a desired response from the tens of thousands of subscribers that they have? I don't have the answer to this question. Their hedge fund is a bit suspicious to me, and the fact that we are dealing with seemingly experts in propaganda might make me think twice about their motivations. I thought they were a news organization, but suppose I was wrong. I'll still going to subscribe to them (when they begin their subscription service again), but I'll definitely be taking a lot of their information with a grain of salt... just in case they aren't who they say they are. At the very least, I've woken up to the fact that they aren't a news organization.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    Friedman had an essay where he espoused on the differences between journalism and intelligence, namely, that the former needs hard facts while the latter tries to fill in holes with intuition and theory. It was a great read. I don't see STRATFOR deriving much value from swinging its limited niche readership around à la Fox News. But their guiding premises are know your source, trust but verify, and think critically about everything. I don't take STRATFOR intel at the same degree of confidence as say an Economist article or something printed in the Times. But I subscribed because they had a knack for casting light in places and on conflicts I wasn't aware of and by making speculative calls, sometimes right often off (e.g. Hamas will use the Egyptian revolution to gain a platform) but always thought provoking.
    - stfu 15y ago
      I don't see STRATFOR deriving much value from swinging its limited niche readership around à la Fox News. Plus you have to consider, that those who would be most valuable to "swing" are most likely using Stratfor as just another piece in the puzzle.
rbanffy 15y ago
The "control" quote is completely out of context and the whole dialog between Friedman and Bhalla is something very different. This is not something I expect Wikileaks to do. And yes, the StratCap thing is very, very bad.
- koningrobot 15y ago
  The context for the control quote is here: http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/202526_re-insight-venezuela-update-on-chavez-s-health-power.html http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/202526_re-insight-venezuel...
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    Thanks. Not all e-readers allow pasting urls...

JumpCrisscross 15y ago

I used to be a corporate subscriber (tens of thousands a month) and personal subscriber (a hundred or so a year). Some of the intel I commissioned at corporate worked its way into retail analysis; this was their policy. STRATFOR is getting heat since they're well known in the public because of their philosophy that everyone should have access to top-grade intelligence. I don't understand how attacking the guys who find secret information, analyse it, and sell it to businesses, governments, and the public promotes an open society. Now we have shifted our business to Kroll and Dilligence and similar firms. They are stoutly anti-public. Not coincidentally their IT security is also top-notch. What was once public will now be very, very secret (Kroll has a 30-day email full deletion policy). I worked for an investment bank. Found their idea of a STRATFOR hedge fund funny, but not evil. Another way to woo colleagues over from the public side while giving themselves a marketing tool against finance firms by being able to point to a performance trail. Mis-guided, perhaps, but given that Google basically runs a prop desk off its cash pile and has no problem with it (many corporate treasuries operate for profit)suggests it may not be an end-of-the-world conflict of interest. Note: I hold no bad blood for Wikileaks; they're informatior brokers. But I do judge the guys who hacked them. Though I judge STRATFOR as well for being so cavalier with their security.

steve8918 15y ago
I guess the question that I have is: Is Stratfor shaping the information that it is supplying to its retail subscribers, for whatever reason (either for the benefit of their corporate subscribers, or for themselves)? It certainly seems like this is something that Friedman and Stratfor are capable of doing. Is it possible that they are employing propaganda techniques through their retail arm in order to get a desired response from the tens of thousands of subscribers that they have? I don't have the answer to this question. Their hedge fund is a bit suspicious to me, and the fact that we are dealing with seemingly experts in propaganda might make me think twice about their motivations. I thought they were a news organization, but suppose I was wrong. I'll still going to subscribe to them (when they begin their subscription service again), but I'll definitely be taking a lot of their information with a grain of salt... just in case they aren't who they say they are. At the very least, I've woken up to the fact that they aren't a news organization.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  Friedman had an essay where he espoused on the differences between journalism and intelligence, namely, that the former needs hard facts while the latter tries to fill in holes with intuition and theory. It was a great read. I don't see STRATFOR deriving much value from swinging its limited niche readership around à la Fox News. But their guiding premises are know your source, trust but verify, and think critically about everything. I don't take STRATFOR intel at the same degree of confidence as say an Economist article or something printed in the Times. But I subscribed because they had a knack for casting light in places and on conflicts I wasn't aware of and by making speculative calls, sometimes right often off (e.g. Hamas will use the Egyptian revolution to gain a platform) but always thought provoking.
  - stfu 15y ago
    I don't see STRATFOR deriving much value from swinging its limited niche readership around à la Fox News. Plus you have to consider, that those who would be most valuable to "swing" are most likely using Stratfor as just another piece in the puzzle.

rbanffy 15y ago

The "control" quote is completely out of context and the whole dialog between Friedman and Bhalla is something very different. This is not something I expect Wikileaks to do. And yes, the StratCap thing is very, very bad.

koningrobot 15y ago
The context for the control quote is here: http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/202526_re-insight-venezuela-update-on-chavez-s-health-power.html http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/202526_re-insight-venezuel...
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Thanks. Not all e-readers allow pasting urls...