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?
The question of identities and motives of the actors is certainly interesting, but there are a bunch of plausible theories:
* WikiLeaks sympathetic individuals who subscribe to the Assange theory of conspiracy (see: http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2010/12/01/conspiraci...). If you grok this, it's a textbook play in the 'throttling weighted conspiracies' game, ain't it?
* Agent provocatuers, as you already mention. That you'd pre-announce a hack like this days before releasing credit card numbers makes absolutely no sense from a Project Mayhem, anarchist perspective, does it? You're giving everyone enough time to cancel cards and minimize mayhem but still maximize reporting of the reckless, misguided behavior of hackers. It only seems to benefit the establishment over the longer-term with a public release like this. If you really care about undermining the system you'd quietly analyze the data and build up an under-the-radar picture of the establishement network to act on, no?
* morons. They got lucky with a target, and care less about gifting SOPA supporters in Washington a delightful Christmas present.
I'm not clever enough to have a view either way, but getting irate based on superficial internet evidence as to the identities and motives of players is not conducive to good health in 2011.
"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.
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.
> 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?
Then surely the New York Times and Washington Post are as well.
Well, of course? As is The Economist and other publications that are part of the existing power structure.
It is possible to make these pedestrian observations without supporting the people who oppose the power structure.
I would also say that in the context of the Cold War, Radio Free Europe HQ would be a "completely valid target". It doesn't mean I actually a) support such an attack, or b) am a communist.
My point is that few of the folks applauding/excusing the StratFor intrusion would support a similar intrusion of the NYT, WashPost, or even Economist.
The question of identities and motives of the actors is certainly interesting, but there are a bunch of plausible theories:
* WikiLeaks sympathetic individuals who subscribe to the Assange theory of conspiracy (see: http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2010/12/01/conspiraci...). If you grok this, it's a textbook play in the 'throttling weighted conspiracies' game, ain't it?
* Agent provocatuers, as you already mention. That you'd pre-announce a hack like this days before releasing credit card numbers makes absolutely no sense from a Project Mayhem, anarchist perspective, does it? You're giving everyone enough time to cancel cards and minimize mayhem but still maximize reporting of the reckless, misguided behavior of hackers. It only seems to benefit the establishment over the longer-term with a public release like this. If you really care about undermining the system you'd quietly analyze the data and build up an under-the-radar picture of the establishement network to act on, no?
* morons. They got lucky with a target, and care less about gifting SOPA supporters in Washington a delightful Christmas present.
I'm not clever enough to have a view either way, but getting irate based on superficial internet evidence as to the identities and motives of players is not conducive to good health in 2011.