Hacker News Reader

Comment by GiraffeNecktie | Hacker News Reader

"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.

View on HN

> "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 ;-)

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.

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. ;-)

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com