goDel Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Haven't seen any of it, but will soon! Thanks for the tip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The thing that interests me is the way the intelligence industry looks like and functions. Especially because there's a private institution like Stratfor, but also instances like Thomson Reuters. It's a market and, to me at least, it's unclear how it's regulated. And as with banks, these institutions work all over the world, so they're in a position to cherry-pick among the various regulations they have to cope with. So in a way they are like the Robin Hoods of intelligence. But what isn't clear are their interests. Normally/ideally I'd expect them to present their customers with the best intelligence they can offer. But what would they do when, say, the US Government pays Stratfor for intelligence on Assange? Do they see WikiLeaks as a competitor? And one which is bad for business? I wonder what happens in the thick grey cloud between factual information and interpretation which these companies are specialized at. And especially in circumstances where these companies are (indirectly) tied to the subject itself, like Assange/WikiLeaks, it's interesting to see whether they can keep their integrity. Or in other words, does the intelligence market have natural balances against monopolies and/or cartels? It's probably not regulated (almost sounds silly). And monopolies/cartels might even be quite common (we'll never know, innit?). The only natural balance I can think of at this point is (obviously) an instance like WikiLeaks. But is that enough? consider that stratfor can sell the same "intelligence" repeatedly to an uninformed customer. consider also that payment has nothing to do with telling the truth. now assume that wikileaks isn't a business that sells information to people for money, they just give it out for free. obviously this is against stratfors interest because they want you to pay them that info. whether they have it and will sell it to you or whether they just make something up is moot, because they've already got your money. literally the business of bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Yeah, the basic assumption was that WikiLeaks is bad for business. But I disagree with the idea of the simplicity of selling bullshit. If you're in the business of selling intelligence, you make money with selling good intelligence (as opposed to bullshit). The idea you can have a sustainable intelligence company which sells bullshit does not make sense. I agree there's probably a model to earn money which is partly based on selling the same information to numerous clients. Nothing weird about that. There's numerous examples in various industries doing something similar (eg. IMS Health). It's just too easy to portray Stratfor, or any other commercial intelligence company, as the baddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Stratfor is temporarily offering their information for free: I'm George Friedman, founder and CEO of Stratfor.As most of you know, in December thieves hacked into Stratfor data systems and stole a large number of company emails, as well as private information of Stratfor subscribers and friends. TodayWikileaks is publishing the emails that were stolen in December. This is a deplorable, unfortunate -- and illegal -- breach of privacy. Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies. Some may be authentic. We will not validate either, nor will we explain the thinking that went into them. Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questions about them. The disclosure of these emails does not mean that there has been another hack of Stratfor's computer and data systems. Those systems, which we have rebuilt with enhanced security measures, remain secure and protected. The release of these emails is, however, a direct attack on Stratfor. This is another attempt to silence and intimidate the company, and one we reject. As you can see, emails sent to many people about my resignation were clearly forged. We do not know what else has been manufactured. Stratfor will not be silenced, and we will continue to publish the geopolitical analysis our friends and subscribers have come to rely on. As we have said before, Stratfor has worked to build good sources in many countries around the world, as any publisher of geopolitical analysis would do. We are proud of the relationships we have built, which help our analysts better understand the issues in many of these countries through the eyes of people who live there. We have developed these relationships with individuals and partnerships with local media in a straightforward manner, and we are committed to meeting the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. Stratfor is not a government organization, not is it affiliated with any government. The emails are private property. Like all private emails, they were written casually, with no expectation that anyone other than the sender and recipient would ever see them. And clearly, as with my supposed resignation letter, some of the emails may be fabricated or altered. Stratfor understands that this hack and the fallout from it have created serious difficulties for our subscribers, friends and employees. We again apologize for this incident, and we deeply appreciate the loyalty that has been shown to Stratfor since last year's hack. We want to assure everyone that Stratfor is recovering from the hack. We will continue to do what we do best: produce and publish independent analysis of international affairs. And we will be back in full operation in the coming weeks. We look forward to continuing to serve you. http://www.stratfor.com/hacking-news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The thing that interests me is the way the intelligence industry looks like and functions. Especially because there's a private institution like Stratfor, but also instances like Thomson Reuters. It's a market and, to me at least, it's unclear how it's regulated. And as with banks, these institutions work all over the world, so they're in a position to cherry-pick among the various regulations they have to cope with. So in a way they are like the Robin Hoods of intelligence. But what isn't clear are their interests. Normally/ideally I'd expect them to present their customers with the best intelligence they can offer. But what would they do when, say, the US Government pays Stratfor for intelligence on Assange? Do they see WikiLeaks as a competitor? And one which is bad for business? I wonder what happens in the thick grey cloud between factual information and interpretation which these companies are specialized at. And especially in circumstances where these companies are (indirectly) tied to the subject itself, like Assange/WikiLeaks, it's interesting to see whether they can keep their integrity. Or in other words, does the intelligence market have natural balances against monopolies and/or cartels? It's probably not regulated (almost sounds silly). And monopolies/cartels might even be quite common (we'll never know, innit?). The only natural balance I can think of at this point is (obviously) an instance like WikiLeaks. But is that enough? The problem of treating it as something that can be solved through a market model is obvious: in markets, customers are assumed to make purchases based on complete information. When the good being purchased is information, how does one make an informed purchase? The reason that stratfor is able to do this is because corporations are lazy and they think that throwing money at a problem will be able to solve their issues. Of course it's not regulated in the usual sense of regulation, but companies that prove themselves inept at maintaining secrecy should be punished. Would you purchase material from them again knowing that they have been compromised several times? (First the credit card hack, then the e-mail hack). The balance comes from hiring your own analysts as well. PS: I think one of the issues here is simply that calling Stratfor an intelligence operation is a total misnomer - they are a think-tank which provides analysis of current events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 The problem of treating it as something that can be solved through a market model is obvious: in markets, customers are assumed to make purchases based on complete information. When the good being purchased is information, how does one make an informed purchase? The reason that stratfor is able to do this is because corporations are lazy and they think that throwing money at a problem will be able to solve their issues. Of course it's not regulated in the usual sense of regulation, but companies that prove themselves inept at maintaining secrecy should be punished. Would you purchase material from them again knowing that they have been compromised several times? (First the credit card hack, then the e-mail hack). The balance comes from hiring your own analysts as well. PS: I think one of the issues here is simply that calling Stratfor an intelligence operation is a total misnomer - they are a think-tank which provides analysis of current events. Nah. That's way too simple. Saying regulation only works in markets with complete information is just silly. Hardly any market is information complete. Take for instance the healthcare market. Does a patient (customer) know a treatment is going to work? No, not always. But that doesn't imply the market can't be regulated. Sure, regulation does require information. Especially how companies operate and what it costs to operate and what its services cost, to name some examples. And I don't see how that couldn't work in the intelligence market. Purely on the basis of this information, a regulator can research if the prizes various companies in the market use, are artificially kept higher than they're supposed to. And informed purchases in the context of information can be made by benchmarking previous outcomes of older research. Old information is generally unimportant/readily available/can be easily checked. Companies like Stratford usually have some sort of portfolio with outcomes of research which are well known to the potential customer (and readily available) which indicate what kind of information they can provide and what the quality is. Also, calling companies lazy is a bit silly. If it's as simple as just hiring analysts, companies like Stratford wouldn't even exist. If a company has a need for market intelligence, it can hire some analysts to analyze readily available information. But the problems start when they need information which is not readily available. And that's where Stratford enters. There's all kinds of information which is not readily available (for all kinds of reasons). Also, don't forget any company is never too lazy to make themselves a business case. If it costs less to hire your own analyst, than to pay Stratford, paying Stratford would not be a serious option. At least, not for a serious company. Companies usually have various ways to throw money at some kind of problem.( Call it competition if you will.) And make decisions based on things like business cases. And on the PS side of things: from what I understand, Stratford does a number of things, one of them being gathering information (and maintaining a network to be provided with all kinds of relevant information). The think-tank you mention are the analysts who are paid to research/interpret all the gathered information. This is an integral part of -any- intelligence operation. Information without any interpretation is not worth much. And this is one of the biggest weakness of WikiLeaks: it has lots of information but no interpretation. It relies completely on its open source model. Which shouldn't be a problem in general. But in the context of intelligence I'm not so sure. Mind you: I'm all for Wikileaks and keeping information as open as possible. But when information is ambiguous and easily misunderstood with possible high risks, there should at least be some kind of quality check before information is spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 while i enjoy reading those leaks because im a voyeuristic and immoral nihilist, it should be kept in mind that anon+wikileaks potentially ruined the lives of tens of people (70 employees on 2004 according to wiki) working for stratfor before presenting any kind of incriminating evidence as far as i know. to me, more than anything those emails show actual people just doing their work, and i just can't imagine stratfor surviving this shitstorm. there are very apparent double standards among the bleeding heart neo-hippies, i mean what was the rationale ? "derp derp evil corprationszs usa ogvernment spies" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 well yeah, if i recall correctly wikileak's mission wasn't really about whistle blowing but eliminating secrecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The problem of treating it as something that can be solved through a market model is obvious: in markets, customers are assumed to make purchases based on complete information. When the good being purchased is information, how does one make an informed purchase? The reason that stratfor is able to do this is because corporations are lazy and they think that throwing money at a problem will be able to solve their issues. Of course it's not regulated in the usual sense of regulation, but companies that prove themselves inept at maintaining secrecy should be punished. Would you purchase material from them again knowing that they have been compromised several times? (First the credit card hack, then the e-mail hack). The balance comes from hiring your own analysts as well. PS: I think one of the issues here is simply that calling Stratfor an intelligence operation is a total misnomer - they are a think-tank which provides analysis of current events. Nah. That's way too simple. Saying regulation only works in markets with complete information is just silly. Hardly any market is information complete. Take for instance the healthcare market. Does a patient (customer) know a treatment is going to work? No, not always. But that doesn't imply the market can't be regulated. Sure, regulation does require information. Especially how companies operate and what it costs to operate and what its services cost, to name some examples. And I don't see how that couldn't work in the intelligence market. Purely on the basis of this information, a regulator can research if the prizes various companies in the market use, are artificially kept higher than they're supposed to. I agree, no market is truly "information complete". That being said - in healthcare for example, the information the consumer has access to is much more complete than in this case, by the nature of the product being sold. Healthcare treatments are tested (usually rigorously) and there is a large catalogue of previous outcomes to base decisions on. And informed purchases in the context of information can be made by benchmarking previous outcomes of older research. Old information is generally unimportant/readily available/can be easily checked. Companies like Stratford usually have some sort of portfolio with outcomes of research which are well known to the potential customer (and readily available) which indicate what kind of information they can provide and what the quality is. This is not the same thing as having a back catalogue of previous nearly identical data. Correct predictions in one area do not equate to correct predictions in a different area. Whereas while for example, appendectomies carry some risk (as all surgery does), the outcome is generally well known. Stratfor indeed does a quarterly review of their predictions - the results of which they keep private. Also, calling companies lazy is a bit silly. If it's as simple as just hiring analysts, companies like Stratford wouldn't even exist. If a company has a need for market intelligence, it can hire some analysts to analyze readily available information. But the problems start when they need information which is not readily available. And that's where Stratford enters. There's all kinds of information which is not readily available (for all kinds of reasons). Also, don't forget any company is never too lazy to make themselves a business case. If it costs less to hire your own analyst, than to pay Stratford, paying Stratford would not be a serious option. At least, not for a serious company. Companies usually have various ways to throw money at some kind of problem.( Call it competition if you will.) And make decisions based on things like business cases. The kind of information that Stratfor was analyzing was generally newspapers and policy briefings which had been released to the public. They admit to as much in their glossary. Read their analysis on the Syria opposition dated Feb.20, 2012 (all info is free to the public at the moment). All they do is summarize news reports. If this is supposed to be worth the kind of money coca-cola was paying, I need to get into this business. And on the PS side of things: from what I understand, Stratford does a number of things, one of them being gathering information (and maintaining a network to be provided with all kinds of relevant information). The think-tank you mention are the analysts who are paid to research/interpret all the gathered information. This is an integral part of -any- intelligence operation. Information without any interpretation is not worth much.And this is one of the biggest weakness of WikiLeaks: it has lots of information but no interpretation. It relies completely on its open source model. Which shouldn't be a problem in general. But in the context of intelligence I'm not so sure. Mind you: I'm all for Wikileaks and keeping information as open as possible. But when information is ambiguous and easily misunderstood with possible high risks, there should at least be some kind of quality check before information is spread. Wikileaks has never presented itself as an intelligence operation as far as I know? My point was, think-tanks do much the same work as Stratfor, and they tend to do it better and do it for free. If you read the article in the Atlantic, the comparison of Stratfor to a news agency is pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 In one of the most appropriate collaborations of our young decade, M.I.A. has teamed with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to compose original music for his new television show, "The World Tomorrow". The show's first episode airs Tuesday, April 17 on the English-language Russian station RT and will be available to watch online. http://www.pitchfork.com/news/46132-mia-teams-with-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-writes-music-for-his-new-tv-show/ i just had a facepalm attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 so Chengod, are you still doubting that Stratfor had access to classified government info that they would share with private corporations? cause you seem completely unwilling to admit Stratfor was anything beyond a 'think tank' even in the face of a ample counter evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 i wasn't following it recently, has there been anything more than that exchange with coca cola that you failed to comprehend and instead applied wishful thinking ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 so Chengod, are you still doubting that Stratfor had access to classified government info that they would share with private corporations? cause you seem completely unwilling to admit Stratfor was anything beyond a 'think tank' even in the face of a ample counter evidence. What ample counter evidence? You haven't provided anything new since the last time I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 lol, stratfor doesn't even reach the think-tank category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaen Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 I wish Rubicon didn't get canceled :/ thanks for reminding me, ill go back into mourning now :( fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 anyone know whats going on? https://twitter.com/wikileaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Toffer Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Wikileaks leaking the juice and Clinton News Network™ not reporting to the civilization of the United Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 https://twitter.com/SandraEckersley/status/787918450547044354 don't know the veracity of this, but Assange being a creep is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Wikileaks leaking the juice and Clinton News Network™ not reporting to the civilization of the United That's a lie. Lots of coverage on CNN about the leaks, maybe there would be a lot more coverage if there was anything of note in the leaks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triachus Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Julian Assange's internet link to the world 'is shut down by America' hours after crazy rumours sweep the web that Pamela Anderson 'killed him with a poisoned vegan Pret sandwich'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3842846/Rumors-swirl-Pamela-Anderson-poisoned-Julian-Assange-vegan-meal-Pret.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 ...for example: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches/ the video at the top contains numerous different segments where they discuss it and interview people about it (including Tim Kaine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychotronic Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Julian Assange's internet link to the world 'is shut down by America' hours after crazy rumours sweep the web that Pamela Anderson 'killed him with a poisoned vegan Pret sandwich' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3842846/Rumors-swirl-Pamela-Anderson-poisoned-Julian-Assange-vegan-meal-Pret.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreOceans Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Seems like the only official source is WikiLeaks. Maybe Assange just spilled coffee on his laptop. Curious though that RT gleefully reported on it, and this suddenly happens http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37677020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 whatever the fuck is going on there's no way we're gonna get the full truth so I'm gonna choose to believe Alex Jones and wait for WW3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychotronic Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Seems like the only official source is WikiLeaks. Maybe Assange just spilled coffee on his laptop. Curious though that RT gleefully reported on it, and this suddenly happens http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37677020 WTF!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.