“I agree. I haven't seen any defining attributes of Anonymous as a group.They may not even know the identities of each other. There are severalfacebook / twitter Anonymous pages, which seem to be run by differentindividuals.”
“But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have access to,and doubt they have such information that provides any sort ofexistential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks.This is a problem with the threat assessment.”
The problem with the threat assessment, apparently, and according to the analysts, is the fact that Stratfor has no clue who or what Anonymous is, how to define Anonymous, or even what Anonymous capabilities are.
“Yes, it's not exactly a 'threat assessment'. just say we don't know. And we can saywe doubt they have it because they haven't shown much capabilities toget at insider/confidential/classified information, rather mostly DDOSattacks. However, there are people that have demonstrated suchcapabilities, and its possible they also joined an 'anonymous'campaign--like whoever got the recent personal data out of the SonyPSN.”
I just have to wonder why the focus of this “threat assessment” is Anonymous? Isn’t bringing down organized crime considered to be a good thing by Stratfor?
This series of articles is being produced as the result of an investigative partnership organised by WikiLeaks, and is based on data obtained and released by WikiLeaks.