Monday, August 06, 2012

Unveiling Stratfor 3: Anonymous Defined?

Okay, now that I’ve had my bit of fun at Stratfor’s expense in my previous post …

I’m going through all of the emails related to Anonymous as thoroughly as possible. A bit challenging since the term comes up in thousands of emails, many of which are just using it as a descriptive word and not talking about the Anonymous collective.

Stratfor apparently became interested in Anonymous with the launch of Operation PayBack. An Anon Op in support of Wikileaks.

The very first email I located was dated December 9, 2010 (DocID: 35760):
“2010-12-09 06:29:38

Thanks. I'm getting a kick out of Anon activities related to this whole thing. “
That comment was in response to the following email sent by an external party to the above Stratfor employee:
“Dec 7, 2010, at 11:50 AM

sup man

here's some extra info along these same lines:

I’m sure Anonymous will be pleased to note that Stratfor analysts initially found their antics lulzy. ;-D

The above email exchange is also interesting for another reason. The party that sent the information to Stratfor used a email address. Fark is a “news aggregator” site for geeks.

However, I should point out that one really can’t come to any conclusions about that relationship without more information. Companies like Stratfor tend to work very hard on establishing a particular image and building relationships. As a result their sources often aren’t fully aware of who they’re dealing with and what the real agenda is. On the other hand, sometimes the sources are quite aware and paid very well to do what they do.

Either way, the significance of this is simply that it's just more evidence that the intelligence agencies and the private corporations associated with them, (aka the Military Industrial Complex) are using social media as an Intelligence source and have been for at least the last few years.

Both the HBGary leak and this current Stratfor leak confirm this as a fact.

Yet despite this fact, there still appears to be a lot of confusion amongst the analysts where non-traditional organizations like Anonymous are concerned. Of course, the purpose of analyzing groups like Anonymous is so that they can attempt to predict future behavior. If they don’t understand the organization, they can’t intervene, infiltrate, or develop accurate predictions about future behavior easily. 

I put this limitation in understanding down to the simple fact that these agencies and corporations live in a “Cold War” world and have a “Cold War” psychology.

They have yet to clue in that the “Cold War” was over in the 1980s and that world has progressed in ways that appear to be quite incomprehensible to them precisely because of their own psychology and it’s associated limitations.

I would apply the very same comments and critique to the traditional political organizations (left, liberal and right).

It is this inability to comprehend that will result in their eventual downfall and has resulted in their complete exposure.

I would ask the Citizenry to consider this:

Is this the world you want for your future and the future of your children?

A world where corporations like Stratfor can invade your privacy in ways previously unheard of through social media, sometimes with the active collusion of the social media, as well as attempt to manipulate public opinion in favor of the corporations and agencies that hire them?

From the first email I published on the “Threat Assessment” in my previous post:
“What about defining Anonymous in terms of the individual? Instead of
saying Anonymous attacking cartels, Individuals acting under the
Anonymous name.... Yes”
What about defining Anonymous truthfully?

Brownie points = 0.

The Unveiling Stratfor 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

Post a Comment