Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

How is Stratfor fundamentally different from Wikileaks? They both obtain leaked information, often by methods of questionable legality. Stratfor uses the information to make reports and newsletters they sells to governments, businesses, and ordinary curious members of the public, whereas Wikileaks releases it for free but in ways that seemed designed to promote Assange, but I wouldn't say these are fundamental differences.

If Wikileaks were truly about bringing secret information to light, wouldn't they be protecting other leak organizations, rather that exposing their sources?

View on HN

"How is Stratfor fundamentally different from Wikileaks? They both obtain leaked information ..."

That's like asking "How are the Crips different from the LAPD? They both drive around Los Angeles and carry guns ..." In the case of Stratfor and Wikileaks, one group finds secret information and makes it public, the other group takes secret information and sells it back to the same secret community from where the leaks originate.

"I wouldn't say these are fundamental differences."

I certainly would.

> "How are the Crips different from the LAPD? They both drive

> around Los Angeles and carry guns ..."

... and they both enforce laws, and they both initiate the use of force against peaceful citizens, and they both take funding from unwilling people by the threat of violence.

I'm not sure you're making the point you intended to make, unless you're an anarcho-capitalist like me ;-)

Do the Crips have a taskforce that investigates corrupt gang members?

Corrupt as in actually police informants? Er, yeah I bet they do actually.

I bet they do. I bet what they lack is a PR department. ;-)

That's exactly my point. Between any two groups, you can cherry pick lots of things that they have in common. So yeah, the Crips and the LAPD both wear "uniforms" and money is a big driving force yada yada. But at the end of the day, one group has a mission that is sanctioned by the overwhelming majority of the community and the other group absolutely doesn't. And I'm sure there's lots to be said about how the gangs and the LAPD are co-dependent but that doesn't make them the same.

This analogy is flawed. Stratfor is not a government organization like the LAPD is.

A better analogy would be to compare the Crips and a private detective agency.

I think Stratfor is an example of this trend of for-profit private outsourcers of things which used to be government-only functions.

Political science types are fond of saying "government must have a monopoly on the use of XYZ", but apparently now if you put the right retired government people on your payroll it's legit.

Military intelligence, international informant "asset" management? Good grief, this is some scary stuff.

I think the only thing political scientists say government should have a monopoly on is violence and national security. Anything beyond that and you enter a fractious field.

even there, the monopoly on both these things is mighty narrow. For example, how many political scientists would say that the state should have such a monopoly on violence that there should be no recognition of a right to defend oneself and others?

However international informent asset management? Does it impinge on the government's necessary monopoly on national security and violence? Two for two, I'd wager.....

That's funny, because the way I read the analogy, Stratfor was the Crips, gathering information and using it for private gain, and Wikileaks was the LAPD, using it for public good. Now clearly the LAPD is probably nearly as corrupt as the Crips, just in different ways-- so I'm not sure far this analogy holds, for that reason and many others. Still very amusing.

To a large degree I agree with this standpoint. The problem with the Stratfor case is, that it was by and large a private research company who's only "crime" so far was selling information for money. And the idea of running an investment fund based on geo political informations seems a pretty smart idea. But what investment fund doesn't want to consider potential problematic externalities in their investments?

The statement including $1,200 a month paid to the informant from the Wikileak's press release seems an almost ridiculously low amount, even when payed regularly, when in contrast other media outlets are paying thousands, and in some cases even millions for access to some temporary celebrities or access to other irrelevant banalities of public life.

I am a subscriber to Stratfor, because of their insightful analysis. It feeds my curiousity about why things they way the are, not not just what is happening (which is what you get from most news sources, if you're lucky). I haven't seen much in the way of leaked information in Stratfor's reports --- in fact, I can't think of any that I could identify as leaked information.

Care to justify your assertion?

I remember them talking about their sources in the FSA when discussing Syria, etc. I still think targeting this was absurd; I lost sympathy for Anonymous after they attacked Stratfor.

One difference is one makes money doing it and the other loses money doing it. One silos information in order to extract wealth from people who are interested in that information. The other releases it for free. One in moving in the direction of more secrecy and information hiding. The other is moving in the direction of more openness and transparency.

I disagree that this is not "fundamentally different". It doesn't get much more "fundamental" than the ideological difference that drives the two organisations.

So journalists are evil because they're paid for what they do?

Stratfor sought to make a profit. Journalists seek to make a living. A lot of the journalists I know would be perfectly happy to work for a not-for-profit organization because they're in it for the work, not the money.

The news organisations seek to make a profit just as much as STRATFOR. When that interferes with their ethics you get News Corp. When it doesn't we have reputable journals.

The people at STRATFOR, similarly, could generally earn much more by working at macro hedge funds. Why they choose not to is their personal decision to make.

I'm not trying to tease out a nuance here, but simply demonstrate that a profit motive doesn't inherently corrupt information collection and analysis.

Sure, but there's a difference between journalists and news organizations. You were conflating them.

Also, I suspect you're wrong. Every serious journalism organization maintains Chinese walls between the journalists and the profit-seekers. I think that's because a profit motive does inherently corrupt in that it creates conflicts of interest.

But would they be willing to do so for subsistence wages? Anything beyond that is just as much "profit".

That's a fine unbacked assertion, but it's wrong. Profit is a measure of a venture's gain beyond its expenses, nothing more. People are not businesses, and one's life is not measurable by a P&L.

That's a warm and fluffy thing to say, but it's not actually true: as an individual, you trade your time for wages, which you spend on first living, and then on living the lifestyle you desire. The latter is "wants", not "needs". It's possible to live a very, very nice lifestyle working for a "non-profit". Nothing wrong with that of course, but let's call a spade a shovel.

That is a modern American consumerist interpretation of the nature of life. P&L is a modern business invention; you can certainly try to interpret the world in terms of it, but it's a narrow and weak philosophy. E.g., what's the ROI on voting?

How is that relevant? We are talking about economic activity. Wanting to work for a "non-profit" is easy; being willing to work for no personal gain takes true commitment. One that you will find that very few of the "capitalism is bad" crowd actually have.

It's relevant because you're trying to view everything through the peephole of a P&L statement. "Everything is capitalism" is no more rational than "capitalism is bad".

I'm talking difference, you go talking about good and evil.

Individual actions taken by people who may or may not be journalists could be good or evil, depending on the individual action.

Journalism paid for by advertisers cannot report on anything that is contrary to the interests of their advertisers.

Direct subscription journalism, like Wikileaks, Counterpunch, or to some extent Le Monde diplomatique is now essential to getting information on what global organisations are really doing (as opposed to what they advertise they are doing).

STRAFOR has a commercial interest in keeping its collected information limited to its customers. Wikileaks exposes its information to the public.

That's like saying there's no difference between Applebee's and UNICEF. Yeah, they both give food to people. One of them does it to those in need to help them, the other to those that have money.

It's best to have both, competition, and have them expose each other as they do now. Unless it's a massive well organized public stunt, i think it benefits the public.

Perhaps wikileaks just cast the first stone in the information wars?

Julian is a former hacker himself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com