Anonymous Hacks US Think Tank Stratfor

Frankie70 writes "At 11:45 PST on Christmas Eve, hacking collective Anonymous disclosed that not only has it hacked the Stratfor website (since confirmed by Friedman himself), but has also obtained the full client list of over 4000 individuals and corporations, including their credit cards (which supposedly have been used to make $1 million in 'donations'), as well as over 200 GB of email correspondence."

Right, and we've seen the results of that

[Sycraft-fu]

So why would it be better when some random script kiddies, who have even less oversight than the TSA, do it for their own ends? When one group does something stupid or bad it does not magically become ok if another group does it.

Re:This is where I worry.

[causality]

What happens the day that someone releases the names? What happens when some poor secretary who's name is on the list gets her details released to netizens without a social conscience. I understand that Stratfor are probably 'evil' from some of their recent actions, but if this activism is attempted then I hope that just a list of names isn't considered sufficient proof by and of itself of wrongdoing.

All I'm trying to say is that an itchy-trigger finger in obtaining information can lead to problems. I equate it to identifying downloaders by their IP, it's not sufficient proof and may be highly misleading.

The flip side of that ... is that choosing not to work for Satan means having a lot less to fear from would-be exorcists.

There are career paths I personally didn't take because I realized the particular industry was corrupt to its core and I wanted no part in that. An honest living that does not make the world a worse place is an integral part of a clear conscience. The kind of numb indifference it would take to not care about such things, to consider them a bother and not a responsibility, would be like a sort of living death.

Since some of you have severe reading comprehension problems, and love to project your personal interpretation onto whatever you read, I'll spell this out for you: nowhere did I say it's perfectly OK that underlings may catch some of the fallout for decisions made by the higher-ups. What I am saying is that if they were more careful about choosing their employer they wouldn't have these concerns. When you choose to become part of something, you're part of it, for better or worse.

The evil organizations of the world never seem to have a problem finding those who will join ranks with them. Ever notice that and wonder if that's the real problem?

For profit intel

[koan]

200 GB of data moving off their network didn't attract attention? I guess Global Intelligence in this case is an oxymoron.
So it's a for profit Intel company that feeds other corps so that they can better plan their financial moves around World issues, along with "other things".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman [wikipedia.org]

Full Client list: http://pastebin.com/8MtFze0s [pastebin.com] over 20k hits

Some clients:
AEG Partners LLC
FOX news
AIG Financial Products
American Airlines
American Express
Blackwater Security Consulting
Wells Fargo Investments

Yawn.

Re:Well good to know

[TubeSteak]

I'm glad that you've decided that "an angry mob" qualifies as sufficient proof for any kind of retaliation. If a group of people (or who knows, maybe just one person, not like you know how many were involved) decides someone or something is "evil" that is all the justification needed to do whatever.

White knighting the corporate world isn't going to get you very far these days.
Many of their crimes are known and public opinion is against them.

If our elected representatives continue to refuse to prosecute wrongdoing in the corporate world, you should expect more hacktivism.
It's not fair, but neither is it fair what has been done to the American (and as a side effect, the rest of the world's) people.

You blame someone because a mob gets angry at them. Ok, so do you blame abortion doctors who get killed?

Hacking a server and killing a doctor are not the same thing.
Nice try though.

Re:Go!

[SuricouRaven]

Anonymous did quite well against the Church of Scientology. Their direct attacks didn't do anything - a week without websites and intermittent email inconvenienced the CoS, no more - but the publicity around it left what reputation the church had in ruin. No longer are they just an obscure cult most people have barely heard of - after the Anonymous-ran campaign on social media, everyone knows to avoid them, and they even got the criticisms mentioned on TV news. Thanks to the PR campaign, the CoS has a harder time recruiting people now.

Most Anonymous operations are a bit of a letdown, but every now and then they can pull it off.

Re:Go!

[RMingin]

"Want to prove me wrong? Want to prove how "powerful" you really are? Come after me then. I can deal with a few little bitch-ass kids, especially when the worst they're ever going to threaten me is to have a few pizza's sent to my house. Hey, no problem. I can actually afford a pizza, unlike you shitdicks harvesting BitCoin in your basement hoping to get some cheap weed."

Posted anonymously. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Re:The Donations...

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't how fraudulent donations are handled. Are you an FBI psyops agent deliberately spreading misinformation or are you just ill-informed?

Anonymous' Robin Hood Credit Card Fraud Campaign Could Hurt More Than Just Banks [pcworld.com]

For example, if p0isAnon members use the stolen credit card information to buy blankets for Occupy Wall Street protesters, the affected banks could initiate chargebacks to recover the money from merchants, who could be left to cover their losses if they didn't follow all the procedures correctly.

Kornbluth confirmed that chargebacks can also be initiated for fraudulent donations. There are multiple online reports from organizations and independent software developers who received fraudulent donations and were later forced to pay chargeback fees in addition to returning the donated amounts.

PayPal offers a donation service for nonprofits, but its user agreement states that sellers don't benefit from protection if the sold item is not a physical, tangible good that can be shipped. Since a donation doesn't meet this criteria, a successful chargeback for a fraudulent transaction could end up costing a nonprofit a fee of US$20 in addition to the donated amount.

Hmmmm.... maybe there is something else going on instead of what they claim.....

Fraudulent Donations Used To Test Stolen Credit Cards [creditcardassist.com]

It’s not always clear whether stolen credit card information will work so hackers have to find ways to “test” the data they steal. Thieves have found new way to accomplish this task. They have been using the Brighton, MI library’s online donation feature to see which cards will work.

Re:Well good to know

[Sycraft-fu]

It's not white knighting, it is pointing out a logical problem with the argument. The argument is that "If there's an angry mob that hates you, you must be evil." My argument is "Not necessarily, maybe the mob is just stupid." Hence the abortion doctor thing. Or are you going to try for the argument that "angry mob" judgement is ok, but only so long as it is done to a specific standard? In that case, what's the standard?

I'm simply pointing you the stupidity as the assertion that having an angry mob mad at you means you did something "evil". I can point out a lot of people and organizations that have had angry mobs after them that I'd say did a lot of good.

Also, perhaps you'd care to enlighten everyone as to what Stratfor has done that is so "evil". If your assessment is just that they are a corporation and corporations are evil then my only response can be that you need to grow the fuck up and learn a whole lot more about the world. If you have specifics as to what makes them "evil" and particularly evil enough to deserve being hacked and that any collateral damage is ok, well then why not share.