Talk:Stratfor email leak

Why is the name of this article "Global Intelligence"

It seems like a more specific name would be handy.72.187.98.128 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to post about that as well. "Global Intelligence Files" is a name made up by Wikileaks/Anonymous, and seems self-aggrandizing, in favor of the perpetrators. I think the article title should be more NPOV, like "2012 Stratfor data leak". As a side note, I'm also not sure if this incident warrants a separate article (yet). Equazcion ^(talk) 07:18, 28 Feb 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that name, though I think it should be 2012 Stratfor email leak, since that was what was leaked. Anyone else concur? Silverseren^C 07:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I chose "data" because then the article could encompass the credit cards and client list that were also leaked. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:28, 28 Feb 2012 (UTC)

But weren't those contained within the emails? I thought that's what was stated in the news and if they're within the emails or attachments to them, then we would be covering them too. Silverseren^C 07:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the credit cards at least, were taken directly from the company's database of payment methods for their subscribers. It stands to reason that the same database was used to compile the client list. Both were released long before the emails were published. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:43, 28 Feb 2012 (UTC)

If they were released long before, then are they really a part of this leak? They could go in some sort of background section that will need to be made at some point, which will cover the Anonymous hacking and anything else of import that happened before. Silverseren^C 07:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, whether they're a part of "this leak" is a matter of interpretation. I would say it's basically all the same event -- Stratfor was hacked, and the data gathered as a result is being released in parts, regardless of the lag in time between releases. I don't see any reason to title the article as to limit it to spotlighting the latest release. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:06, 28 Feb 2012 (UTC)

"2012 Stratfor email leak" should suffice -- if there is another stratfor leak this year we can change it

Further it isnt POV to suggest what its ACTUALLY called (as i believe the other leak ws entitled here)...thats the name by those who did it and thus a proper noun. WP shouldnt make up titles when there is one. in that vein, the lead can say it was the name BY the leaker, the newsmaker. (which WP is not)(Lihaas (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).

This can be considered a lot of things: a news event, famous crime, or scandal; but it's not an original work, where we simply title according to the creator's proper name. The test, I think, should be whether the name was adopted by the secondary sources (the media, in this case), but in this case it doesn't seem to have been (and for good reason, I think; it's too broad and, again, self-aggrandizing). Equazcion ^(talk) 12:53, 14 Mar 2012 (UTC)

No ones calling it an original work...the LEAK (if yuo must) was fro wikileaks under the banner of siaid event. Likewise for any organisation (and think-tanks have dubious bnames that are not accurate to intent) we use THEIR given name however dodgy. FDD and democracy? Please? AEI and enterprise? hmmm...and all the other democratic and other institutes liek ADL? pretty one-sided defamation.

Likewise, why should WP be a newsmaker to manufature a title when a n options is there.(Lihaas (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).

No NPOV title exists that's been widely accepted by the secondary sources. Wikipedia names things thusly in similar instances, such as 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike (just one example). It may seem too original, but I believe when a party's original name is used it's actually because they are picked up as the accepted nomenclature in secondary sources, not because the responsible party named them that way. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:33, 14 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Not with ARENA which is the accapted name but the official one is used here...but thats othercrapexists.

Anyways, were going in circles...gonna need a 3O on this.(Lihaas (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).

Insider trading

I've added a "citation needed" for "insider trading" because investing on "intelligence gathered" (things you find out) is not the same as "insider trading", which is a criminal offence in many countries relating specifically to securities issued by companies. The term would seem particularly inapplicable if the intention of their fund was to trade in currencies and government bonds as suggested by the International Business Times article cited; the article makes no mention of insider trading. 78.146.232.99 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The ibtimes and guardian refs already present in that section point to other emails indicating that their intelligence comes in some part from insiders of companies and governments -- which if used to trade would make StratCap an insider trading scheme. The indication also comes from the fact that they've taken steps to make the trading entity appear outwardly separate from the intelligence company, which wouldn't be necessary if they were working with public information. I reworded things slightly and copied the guardian ref up to that paragraph. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:31, 7 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Edits explained

This edit went beyond what was in the edit summary.

Last para needs consistency on italics. It says to media organisations then selectively italicises some. Likewise then wikileaks is a similar organisation.

"hacker group Anonymous, who hacked" Come on, thats redundant.

It also reintroduces single sentence paras (now cleaned)

"The emails are claimed to include" vague. Are claimed by who? By the emails? they cant claim to.

"The emails began to appear on WikiLeaks on February 27, 2012. There are more than 5 million emails that will eventually be disclosed according to WikiLeaks, though only 705 have been released thus far" Fragment of 2 sentences to be merged (the first is especially dodgy, grammatically)(Lihaas (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).

• Claimed by WikiLeaks. "Allegedly" means an outside accusation, whereas this is a claim by the releasing party.
• Feb 27th release didn't include 705 emails. It was much less initially. 705 have been released to date, though. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:28, 14 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Then add a specification to the wording..."are claimed to" is not grammatically correct unless it means the emails are claimed to have done so (which is not possible)

How about "since feb..." its a fragment now and poorly written.(Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).

I'm pretty sure "are claimed to" is fine grammatically. Cars 'are driven to' work and tigers 'are trained to' jump through hoops -- it doesn't mean tigers and cars are performing the driving and training themselves. Since the article is largely about claims made by WikiLeaks and we've already got a bunch of sentences that begin with "WikiLeaks says" or "stated" etc etc, it seems repetitive to add another one. Also see [1] (just one of many examples I found).

The Feb 27th sentence, "E-mails began appearing on WikiLeaks on February 27, 2012, with 705 of the claimed 5 million total emails appearing to date," isn't a fragment, at least as far as I can tell. See here for example: Exploration has been very active in this area, with more than 1 billion BOE of recoverable reserves discovered to date.

Sorry to just bring examples from other sites but I'm not sure how else to show that the grammar is sound here. The examples are from scientific journals, so even if it's not steadfast proof I still hope it's a clue. I've been a grammar junkie since grade school (20 years ago) and I'm reasonably certain these sentences are fine. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:22, 15 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I digress: cars maybe driveN but cars dont drive...likewise emails dont claim.

with the unnecessary addition of 2 sentences when it can be merged, yep there is a better option

scientific journals are not english language grammatical authorities.(Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)).

"Emails are claimed to" doesn't mean the emails are doing the claiming. It means someone else is claiming something about the emails, just like "tigers are trained to jump through hoops [by trainers]" or "cars are driven to the workplace [by employees]". Similarly, the "emails are claimed to include client information [by the people who released them]. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:08, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Are we seriously arguing about the linguistical semantics of a sentence? :P Silverseren^C 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed an error/misunderstanding on the part of someone who read the Democracy Now article and misunderstood it to mean that Thomas Kavaler's email address and password were revealed by the Hammond attack. It was Kavaler's email address and his Stratfor password - one logs into Stratfor using an email address and password pair. Voronwae (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim

"WikiLeaks said it had obtained the e-mails from the hacker group Anonymous". Where is the source of that? Wikileaks never mentioned the source. Various people affiliated with Anonymous said the emails were handed over but Wikileaks never confirmed this. 50.7.240.10 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The FBI makes the claim that the hacker group was AntiSec: "The Stratfor Hack. In December 2011, HAMMOND conspired to hack into computer systems used by Stratfor, a private firm that provides governments and others with independent geopolitical analysis. HAMMOND and his co-conspirators, as members of AntiSec, stole confidential information from those computer systems, including Stratfor employees’ e-mails as well as account information for approximately 860,000 Stratfor subscribers or clients. HAMMOND and his co-conspirators stole credit card information for approximately 60,000 credit card users and used some of the stolen data to make unauthorized charges exceeding $700,000. HAMMOND and his co-conspirators also publicly disclosed some of the confidential information they had stolen … The charges contained in the indictment and complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty." Source: http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/six-hackers-in-the-united-states-and-abroad-charged-for-crimes-affecting-over-one-million-victims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.6.232 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's this and this as two examples of why the article says that. Anonymous took credit for the release. And by Antisec, I assume you mean Operation Antisec, which was a part of the Antisec movement and was conducted by LulzSec, which is a group that falls under the banner of Anonymous. So it checks out. Silverseren^C 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: "by Antisec, I assume you mean Operation Antisec". Ah no, my dear boy – I mean nothing. If you read carefully you'd notice that block of text is a quote from a recent FBI press release. But presumably the Feds are just confusing arse and elbow once again, if what you say is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.176.153 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably. We can't really expect the FBI to know how the internet works. Especially not when we're talking about Anonymous, because no one knows how Anonymous works except Anonymous and maybe not even them besides. Silverseren^C 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ME1 informer is Hilal Khashan

This might be interesting here, not sure where to place it though. http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/aub/behind-sources-i-one-stop-shop FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Did hackers uncover Petraeus' saucy affair webmails before FBI?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/cia_boss_resignation_webmail_intrigue/

Worth noting? Hcobb (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)