Feeds

back to article Stratfor settles class-action over Anon megahack with freebies

Stratfor has agreed to forgo $1.75m in income to settle a class action lawsuit arising from a high-profile hack by hacktivist group Anonymous against the global intelligence firm's systems last December. Anonymous-affiliated hackers broke into Stratfor's systems in the run-up to Christmas last year before publishing hundreds of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Ouch, having to read the book will be an ordeal.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

High-profile hack?

What Operating System Platform was this hack run on?

"Stratfor has agreed to forgo $1.75m in income to settle a class action lawsuit arising from a high-profile hack by hacktivist group Anonymous against the global intelligence firm's systems last December".

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: High-profile hack?

If I remember correctly the Anonymous guys talked about leaving with a parting shot of "rm -rf /*", so I'd guess some sort of Linux/UNIX.

0
0
Silver badge

Charity.

"Various Anons boasted of plans to use the stolen credit card data to make donations to charities, including the Red Cross. Any such transaction would have more than likely been identified and reversed, however."

According to an earlier article on this site, published immediately after the incident occurred, the reversal of charges would have cost the "recipient charities" $35 per fraudulent donation. It would be interesting to know if any such fraudulent "donations" were made, and if so, how much the charities lost as a result.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Suck-you-dry attack

Such charges are a bit odd, innit? They also obviously leave you vulnerable to a nice attack: Just insert many, many orders of "donating" something (maybe just a dollar) to the mark into the system then contesting them all.

It's not the credit card companies that're actually shouldering the risk of the service they sell, yet they do reap most of the profits. Much like, oh I know, bankers.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Suck-you-dry attack

Thats because Credit Card companies ARE bankers.

0
0
Silver badge

$1.75m out of pocket

It's pretty safe to assume that none (or few) of the claimants would have bought the e-book, and that cost them nothing, sot that has to be taken out of the estimate.

It is also pretty safe to say that at least some of the claimant would not have subscribed to the month they are offered, and that doesn't cost them much (certainly not $29 per head) so a lot of that amount is bollocks too.

Lastly, they would have had topay real cash if the had not proposed freebie. So a more correct formulation would have been "will save Stratfor an estimated $1m in cash".

1
1
Silver badge
Devil

Re: $1.75m out of pocket

Claimants are Stratfor (ex)-customers which have been fed their "product" for a while at the prices usually paid for. You do not buy this kind of services one off - you buy them on a recurring basis. So, actually, it is pretty safe that they would have bought it - same as the month of service.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: $1.75m out of pocket

"It's pretty safe to assume that none (or few) of the claimants would have bought the e-book"

So you're suggesting that the book was written without expecting anyone to buy it? Or that it was commissioned just in case it needed to be used as part of a class-action settlement? It's silly to say that "none (or few)" of Stratfors paying customers would have paid for one of Stratfor's products. That's kind of the defining quality.

"It is also pretty safe to say that at least some of the claimant would not have subscribed to the month they are offered, and that doesn't cost them much "

Really shows how much you know. Stratfor subscriptions are typically purchased on a yearly basis so it's effectively a free month.

"Lastly, they would have had topay real cash if the had not proposed freebie. So a more correct formulation would have been "will save Stratfor an estimated $1m in cash".

You've already shown your ignorance about both Stratfor's business model, but you're keen to pronounce on the internal costings of things you know nothing about. Tell me exactly where you got that figure of $1million. Calculated how exactly? Or was it ex anus? When you have goods with a worth of $1.7m given free to a customer base that are demonstrably repeat purchasers of said goods, it's just downright stupid to say that it has saved them "$1million in cash". Admit it, you don't know much about this, you're not nor ever have been a Stratfor customer but you saw a chance to pronounce some entirely made up numbers to the world because you like sounding like you know what you're talking about in the hope someone will be tricked into modding you up. Correct?

1
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: $1.75m out of pocket

>Claimants are Stratfor (ex)-customers which have been fed their "product" for a while at the prices usually paid for.

Oh OK. I guess I was not aware of how much of a captive market Stratfor customers were.

The numbers are still bollocks because that's entirely aimed at avoiding to pay much more in damage. But maybe not as much as I was assuming. "never assume anything", they say. Easier said than done. Mea maxima Culpa.

*own facepalm*

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: $1.75m out of pocket

> Admit it, you don't know much about this

I know a bit about the "value vs cost" of digital goods and how it's widely abused

> you're not nor ever have been a Stratfor customer

That is indeed correct

> but you saw a chance to pronounce some entirely made up numbers to the world because you like sounding like you know what you're talking about in the hope someone will be tricked into modding you up. Correct?

That is entirely incorrect, ridiculous, frankly insulting, and, if I may, says more about you than it says about me. You are either grossly underestimating my potential to be a dumbass, or grossly overestimating my ability to give a fuck about votes. Most likely both. Most likely due to your own obsession about votes. Which makes you a dumbass.

There you have it, I think we are even. Let's have a pint and forget about the whole thing.

0
1
Silver badge
Pint

Re: $1.75m out of pocket

"I know a bit about the "value vs cost" of digital goods and how it's widely abused"

I don't think you do. Stratfor are selling intelligence analysis. I'm a customer of theirs. It doesn't really matter whether I receive their reports by paper letter or by email - though obviously receiving them by email is very much more convenient for me. I know the value I place on their analyses and it has no relationship to the medium being digital. That you even relate their service (strategic analysis) to "digital goods" which conventionally means a product such as an ebook, movie or music, shows how badly you are conflating different services.

"That is indeed correct"

That was indeed obvious. I am, as stated, a customer of Stratfor. But you seem determined to pronounce your greater understanding of the situation even after you've been shown incorrect on basic facts to do with this.

"That is entirely incorrect, ridiculous, frankly insulting, and, if I may, says more about you than it says about me."

It may be insulting, but it is not incorrect. You plainly did not know simple things about the situation, yet you made a polemnical post about it in a righteous way. If that is not posting because you want to sound good, rather than because you actually have facts or insight to bring to this, then I don't know what other conclusion you expect me to draw or why.

"Let's have a pint and forget about the whole thing."

No problem. (Icon ticked)

0
1
Silver badge
Pint

Re: $1.75m out of pocket

> I don't think you do. Stratfor are selling intelligence analysis.

Indeed. Which doesn't make a difference. However they choose to price their stuff, for them it's mostly a fixed cost. Giving it away to x customers does not cost them the retail price times x, which you will find was my point if you climb down your high horse for a minute.

> shows how badly you are conflating different services.

I think you are blinded by the fact that one type is classified as "entertainment" whereas the other one is "work-related". The costs and distribution models are actually exactly identical. There is some initial investment to create what is now called "intellectual property" (be it Gandalf casting a spell or some information about nasty Chinese hackers). That is then sold to customers at a price that is determined mostly by the amount that said customers are ready to pay (not by the initial investment). If you hand it out for free, it is NOT costing you the retail price. If you hand it out for free _to avoid being fined to hell and back_, in addition to losing a lot of your customers' confidence, as is the case here, then you are actually MAKING money (I'm told that confidence is the very base of that particular business). These figures are total and utter bollocks.

> It may be insulting, but it is not incorrect. You plainly did not know simple things about the situation, yet you made a polemnical post about it in a righteous way. If that is not posting because you want to sound good, rather than because you actually have facts or insight to bring to this, then I don't know what other conclusion you expect me to draw or why.

I don't think I should share the conclusion I draw from that part of your post. Not on a public medium. That would make _me_ sound like an arrogant jerk.

Now I'm off for an actual pint.

0
0
WTF?

Assigning $1.75m in "lost income" for digital goods and services? Sounds like a promising candidate for the RIAA legal team.

1
1
Silver badge

Your comment doesn't even make sense. There's no reference to "$1.75m of lost income". Stratfor are not suing anyone for loss of sales of their "digital goods and services." It's a compensation to customers for leaked data. You didn't apparently even read the article, Sir Kneejerk.

1
1
WTF?

@Harmony

perhaps you should post under another moniker when you name-call and sarcastigate.

How about, "Stratforever"?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Harmony

Facts are more important than wanting to sound right on the Internet which is the motivation I see here.

If someone pronounces things confidently and polemnically and it is trivially easy to show that they don't actually know what they're talking about, then they deserve to be rewarded with sarcasm because they are actively misleading people for the sake of trying to sound righteous.

1
1

This post has been deleted by its author

This topic is closed for new posts.