Exposing Stratfor: WikiLeaks details inner workings of analysis firm
February 28th, 2012
04:01 PM ET

Exposing Stratfor: WikiLeaks details inner workings of analysis firm

By Suzanne Kelly

The first blow came in December, when private analysis firm Stratfor - which gathers open-source and paid-source information on global issues for subscription-based clients - had its company e-mail hacked. It was reportedly the work of the loose-knit, yet well-feared group of hackers known as Anonymous.

This week, the second blow was delivered as the website WikiLeaks began posting what it says is a body of internal Stratfor e-mails numbering in the millions and reportedly laying out just how the sausage is made at a modern-day private intelligence firm.

A reading of the e-mails already published paints a picture of a company that sees itself, at times, as a rival to U.S. government intelligence agencies.

While companies that offer analysis products to government and corporate clients are common, they rarely ever publicly disclose how they make their assessments, and how they employ their various "sources" of information, nor do they talk about how they turn that information around for their clients.

But within the lines of the more than 5 million e-mails that WikiLeaks claim span a seven-year period of time, a picture begins to emerge.

The e-mails range from detailed lists of clients that include companies, individuals, universities, and government departments, to the company's own analysis of the strength of its source roster. They also lay out the vision that Stratfor CEO George Friedman had for the company, and offer details about a generous donor who played an instrumental role in the development of an investment fund fueled by Stratfor's intelligence-gathering initiatives.

The company says it is outraged over the breach of its privacy and is remaining tight-lipped about the e-mails, though it did issue a statement on how it sees the disclosure of private information. Read full statement here.

"This is a deplorable, unfortunate - and illegal - breach of privacy," read the Stratfor statement, which warned that contents of the e-mails may have been altered.

The company refused, however, to answer any questions about the information contained within them, saying: "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either. Nor will we explain the thinking that went into them. Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them."

As with prior WikiLeaks mass-information postings, many of the e-mails appear harmless, but some seem to reveal a company that sees itself as a rival to the government's intelligence community. For instance, one e-mail dated 2004 that was purported to be from Friedman, shared news that the head of analysis at the Central Intelligence Agency had been fired. In it, the author of the e-mail criticizes the agency's analysis structure and shares his sentiment that Stratfor's products were superior to the agency's.

"My charge against her was and remains that she took no pride in her craft and turned intelligence into PR and shoddy process," the e-mail author wrote. "She (the CIA analysis head) and her gang are now history. This gives Stratfor an enormous, historic opportunity. The CIA model of analysis has been invalidated. The ponderous, process driven machine that could only manage the small things now needs to be replaced by a robust, visionary, courageous analytic system. Stratfor has the opportunity to show the way."

Some of the e-mails raise questions about the extent to which Stratfor analysts go in gathering information.

In some of the juicier personal e-mails between colleagues, one seemingly jokingly implies that a female employee was sleeping with her sources in order to get information. But another e-mail that appears to be from Friedman took a much more serious tone when discussing how to get information from an Israeli intelligence informant.

"(Y)ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase."

Companies that offer services like Stratfor's often rely on a global network of informants - some of them paid - who supply information on various issues that are of particular interest to clients, but there are laws governing such activities.

In an e-mail dated in August of last year, news was reportedly shared that 19 brigadiers in the Pakistan army had been promoted to major generals. The comment at the top of the e-mail that appeared to be from a Stratfor employee read: "We have a source among these 19 and he is a rising star within the hierarchy and is seen as having a really good shot at the top job."

Also in an e-mail dated in August of last year, Friedman reportedly wrote, "We are retaining a law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I don't plan to do the perp walk and I don't want anyone here doing it either."

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal for "certain classes of persons" to make payments to officials in other countries for the purpose of either obtaining or retaining business opportunities.

More details about Stratfor will undoubtedly continue to surface in the coming weeks as WikiLeaks continues its slow rollout of corporate punishment by posting e-mails in batches at a time. The company says it is doing business as usual, only now with better security over its e-mail accounts.

soundoff (46 Responses)
  1. Tom Burlinson

    Hi there, You've done a fantastic job. I'll definitely digg it and in my view suggest to my friends. I'm sure they'll be benefited from this website.

    July 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Reply
  2. Dr. Strangelove

    When do you suppose that some government somewhere will have had enough of this joker and send in a discreet team to take care of business ?

    June 20, 2012 at 10:33 am | Reply
  3. mipolitic

    so some private firm is being pointed at for the info that wikileaks is criminaly releasing? well i would say not so quick , i read from this that there is another major dump coming from wikileaks and the pointing game is going to start as to who got hacked and why was a private firm in knowledge of usa top secret assests?
    so in an election year this sort of thing could have a bite to it. i can not see a private firm having the info that cnn is suggesting in regards to assests. this is a bs story that is the begining of the pointing game before the questions from washington start.

    February 28, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Reply
    • George

      Subject: INSIGHT – RUSSIA – Iskander Missile Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:33:19 -0600 From: Lauren Goodrich To: 'Secure List' , George Friedman CODE: RU153PUBLICATION: yesATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources MoscowSOURCE DESCRIPTION: Russia's Defense Council (group of destnfespecialises from Ministry, Militaries & GRU) that report to PutySOURCE RELIABILITY: 2ITEM CREDIBILITY: highHANDLER: LaurenКакая странная служба) Агента с рейтингом 2 не раскрывают, а с рейтингом достоверности 1- раскрывают прямо в тексте... CODE: RU101PUBLICATION: checkingATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in the KremlinSOURCE DESCRIPTION: The Prosecutor GeneralSOURCE RELIABILITY: AITEM CREDIBILITY: 1HANDLER: Lauren...The problem is that Sechin/Patrushev want to come after me (Chaika), butSurkov will not allow such a move. What I have been told is that Putin haslaid ground rules on how far each clan can go to purge the other...

      June 28, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Reply

    they are just bunch of time wasterz

    February 28, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Reply
  5. harlan s.

    In my opinion, Anonymous has pushed Stratfor into 3 mistakes:

    1)Stratfor was a worldwide power broker in intelligence, and they operated closely with the FBI. This U.S. government agency (the FBI) now
    has a conflict of interest with Stratfor. The FBI has the motive to go much further in their investigation, and act at the behest of Stratfor, who presumably has leverage with the FBI owing to mutual work on sensitive projects in the past. The FBI may be used as Stratfor's private "enforcer".

    2)Stratfor is now revealed to have many contacts within the press, in all corners of the globe. At the same time, a former Goldman Sachs (GS) employee became an extraordinarily influential person at Stratfor – even being invited to take a seat on the board. The ex-GS employee apparently set up a fund to profit from Stratfor's intelligence. But, might the flow of information also work in the reverse direction? From Stratfor into the newspapers? Stratfor would soon have to face the temptation of purposefully inserting its better hunches into the newspapers through the conduit of its reporters, thereby creating a price reaction in any underlying tradeable instruments. There are no insider trading laws within the field of commodities.

    3)Stratfor will now be in conflict with clients, for whom Stratfor has done special research. In this unlit world of "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", how can both Stratfor and its special clients have failed to capitalize on gray area, and even illegal opportunities, to gain power and influence? The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has already been singled out by Friedman himself, as a problem area in the leaked emails. Certainly 5 million emails will reveal some surprising connections. Stratfor and its special clients will then be at odds, each party benefiting from blaming the other, first.

    February 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • kelly

      Regarding your first point concerning the FBI spying on it's citizens.

      This has already been done for commercial interests, and not to uphold the law.

      A group of citizens (PETA) had their FBI "file" passed on to Coca-Cola, through Stratfor. Coca-Cola had no interest in the law, but in their profits. Is this what private citizens pay their taxes to the FBI for?

      February 28, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Reply
  6. mipolitic

    so if i am understanding this right , this story suggest that a privet firm is the one that was breached and responsable for the security laek , this is a spin doctor at work here. obamas gang is throwing the ball to someone else , the only problem with that is they will refuse to catch it and the truth will come out . c bs story or simply put a bs story.

    February 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Reply
    • This Guy

      Yes, Obama is responsible for this! Similarly when I lost my keys early, did Obama own up? Hell no! His spin doctors are just too good...god damn it!

      February 28, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Reply
      • Orlando

        The Greens put a number of qutsnioes to Sen. Evans today on what the Australian Government knew of current US moves re: Assange. As Senate rep for the vacant Foreign Affairs ministry, Evans gave what could be described as a cavalier know nothing response.If this Labor Government ever wants to re-connect with a local voting audience then it needs to demonstrate some idealism and principle on this and other gut' issues. If the Arbib US conduit was all one way traffic then his going might pave the way for a different approach.By the way I still haven't heard a Gillard Government response to the US offer of loaning nuclear subs to us should our Collins class six completely collapse before 2025. Talk about wedging us on the US-China issue!

        July 1, 2012 at 1:20 am |
    • Kuppajava

      Rurrn Tooh Spull yueue Rassist Hillbillieee! Dudd oBBamma give yoee Momma ann hurr Bruthohh a Babbee tooo?

      February 28, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.