I have couple of questions I hope someone on HN can answer:
One, what exactly is Stratfor? The wikipedia article was far from enlightening. And, two, what did they do to get on Anonymous's bad side? Is this SOPA related?
Stratfor is essentially a US-based but global news source that gives you the expert commentary and analysis on geopolitical issues that the regular news won't tell you.
Case in point: I started subscribing to Stratfor after the Fukushima meltdown and their great commentary on the situation, stuff that you wouldn't hear about from any other news source. One really great analysis talked about how the farm lands would take over a year just to recover from the salt water from the tsunami, let alone the other damage. Stuff like that you just don't read from CNN, google news, etc. As well, despite what the Japanese government was telling the world, it turned out to be the worst nuclear disaster in history.
They have expert commentary and analysis on any types of issues that are geopolitical in nature. For example, they have a lot of information on the European financial crisis, Iran capturing the drone, and they even debunked a recent Iranian news conference saying they had captured an American spy. Their analysis on the Middle East protests, as well as the the fallout in terms of Putin's recent political issues, etc, was very interesting.
It's pretty much the most informed, independent, honest news source for anything going on throughout the world.
The comments above talking about how they fear monger, etc, is completely unfounded, at least from what I've seen. I've subscribed to them for almost a year now, and there's no fear mongering whatsoever.
The fact that Anonymous/hacker groups would target Stratfor is kind of idiotic, it's independent news sources like this that don't work at the behest of governments and Rupert Murdoch that is keeping us informed, at least somewhat.
At your link: "Mongoven warned industry leaders about the increasing collaboration between environmental groups and patients groups on the issue of exposure to chemicals. "
That seems pretty unobjectionable. It's probably even true, and probably ought to have been obvious to the industry without Stratfor's advice. The issue is how the industry responded: by throwing up smokescreens? By lobbying government to avoid regulation? Or by working to reduce emissions and satisfy the public's concerns? An outfit like Stratfor can't control what actions its clients take based on the information and opinions it provides.
So Sourcewatch's case comes down to 1) a leftist's complaint about its coverage of Latin America, and 2) something that is not objectionable.
It's propaganda for a realpolitik point of view. They do not really take sides with anyone. My only gripe with them is that, all things being considered, and George Friedman's work having been read, they seem subtly promoting of their reasoning for American dominance, but that bent may just have to do with the way they do their best to explain why things are the way they are, rather than what things should be.
If anything, that is the reason to dislike them. Their analysis of the facts more or less ignores humanity. But to be fair to them, the world is an inhuman place to live in.
It's sort of a weird field, I work for a hedge fund so I know that some people do hire these guys / subscribe to their research.
Personally, I think a lot of geopolitical risk analysis work is kind of BS. They are incentivized to freak you out and make you scare of the world so you'll keep buying their research. I was just at a conference where a guy from one risk firm claimed that there was a 60% chance of an attack by the US/Israel on Iran. But he had no real systematic process at work and no track record of making accurate positions, so it's tough to probability weight that kind of scenario from an investor's perspective.
I don't think it's the greatest way to try to make money, but I can understand that guys that are investing in very oil specific/security sensitive plays, this kind of research could add a bit incremental value.
Stratfor does geopolitical consulting and forecasting, mostly via a series of newsletters and reports. They've got (or at the least, trade on having) good connections inside various military and intelligence services, and in all sorts of possible trouble spots. Think of them like a very small news and research organization with only private clients.
For the most part, their customers are companies who are in industries where geopolitics if off-the-beaten-track places matters. Think resource extraction in developing markets, or other regulated businesses in places where the government may not be too stable/open and the press not too free. When you get into it, there are all sorts of services/lists like Stratfor, each with their own sources and agendas. They're all generally quite expensive, low-profile, and contradictory - but one successful play off a tip from one of these newsletters would reap a reward of hundreds of times its cost. For a sample of these types of reports, check out DebkaFile [1]. It's certainly got its biases and issues, but will give you a taste of what these private intelligence newsletters are like.
As for why they're on Anonymous' bad side, maybe it had to do with Startfor's coverage [2] of Anonymous' mini-campaign against the Mexican drug cartels?
They aren't that expensive, I think you can get the first year for $100. It's well worth it considering the garbage that you get from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.
For AntiSec I don't think they necessarily have to get on their "bad side" but just present a high security image while having poor security in reality.
Maybe someone who knows more can clarify but that's been my impression.
These Anonymous people seem to think they've hacked a defense contractor.
What they've actually done is more like hacking the Economist magazine, which even has something they call the "Economist Intelligence Unit", which I think sells research, albeit probably with a more economic/political/industrial focus than military-focused information.
No they seem to think they've hacked a private news company with strong ties to various intelligence services that had truly awful computer security practices (cc numbers in plain text on a webserver) and have gotten a lot of press.
The goal is to show people that their data is not safe because of widespread poor security and to encourage the public to actually demand more than a token effort.
I don't want it to sound like I fully support their actions but it's silly to make them out to be ignorant or inconsistent.
A lot of people (on /., especially) seem to think Stratfor, being involved with "intelligence" is some sort of private-sector CIA/NSA, an intel version of Blackwater.
While Blackwater was apparently one of the Stratfor customers in the released files, another organization that came up was Doctors Without Borders. I assume they would be customers because they often work in conflict zones and unstable regions.
Another customer was affiliated with Apple. I suppose it'd be useful to keep tabs on things like the political situation in Thailand, where some suppliers might be located. If some major upheaval were possible, they'd want some warning, so they could start finding possible alternate suppliers.
While Stratfor's site is down, you might get an idea of what that sort of organization does by looking at the Jane's website, or the Economist Intelligence Unit's site.
