Put another way, it's a sustainable Wikileaks (sustainable because it is self-financing and can attract talent, albeit evidently not IT).
If you read about a New York Times investigative journalist bribing their way into Libya, clinking drinks with dictators, etc. to get a scoop on what they're doing, would that be evil? Perhaps to some, but I value the information. It's a bit sleazy on the field, sure, but given that the information is known by intelligence agencies the next question is whether it is known to the public.
So the argument that you are making is that because some illegal acts may ultimately be used in a way that can be seen as positive (the journalist analogy), you see no problem with a company acting illegally ('sleazy') on a regular basis?
'Illegal' is regime specific. It's absurd to argue legality within a context of hacked emails. If we are being strictly legalistic we should discard this evidence as being illegally obtained.
So let's change your question to is it okay to gain intelligence by venality? My answer is it is a continuum. Would I advocate bribing North Korean officials to gain insight on what they're doing? Yes. For Germany? No. STRATFOR, through the incentives in our global political regime, snaps into public opinion modulated by the risk of getting caught (as any agent in a political society does).
Generalising this de-spirits the debate. The fact is this information is being collected and will continue to be collected because it has tremendous intrinsic value. The question is how widely available it will be. I can pay for it. I just thought people liked having access to it as well. I would understand, though, if people preferred pretending reality isn't as it is.
I agree on the continuum, and that there is no point pretending reality isn't as it is, but on the other hand is there not a case that actions being taken by organisations such as these may not actually be in the interests of the wider public, and thus they should have a degree of public oversight and/or transparency in their actions?
If we could multilaterally ban (and enforce a ban) on espionage, thus forcing diplomacy into the open, would I be opposed? No.
But that's not the world we inhabit. Nation-states are perpetually insecure about the intentions of others. Hence, espionage will exist with states as the actors.
So the next level is how widely disseminated should this information be? The intel Kroll, Dilligence, Nardello, IGI, etc. provide will always be available in one form or another. And because it's very information dense people like me, who want to understand above all else, will bid up the value of that information.
I understand the public being uneasy with all of this. It's akin to pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz. But it is how geopolitics works; we are shooting the messenger. It's a shame that Anonymous et Pals may have just severed the single link the majority of people had to this world. I, on the other hand, will only have to deal with one fewer information brokers.
There was an article on HN a day or two ago on how being pragmatic, even if it's sour, is better than being solely right. I think this is one of those cases.
> But that's not the world we inhabit. Nation-states are perpetually insecure about the intentions of others. Hence, espionage will exist with states as the actors.
I can see that it pretty point-of-view, but I don't agree with this. I think we live in the world that we make, nothing is 'perpetual', and that in Western countries especially we will gain in the long-run from ensuring our own ethical standards are high. This, from my point-of-view, is practical.
Put another way, it's a sustainable Wikileaks (sustainable because it is self-financing and can attract talent, albeit evidently not IT).
No, put another way, were Wikileaks is a robin hood (steal from the powerful, give to the public), they are a villain for hire -- and one that also has a super-boss at that.
If you read about a New York Times investigative journalist bribing their way into Libya, clinking drinks with dictators, etc. to get a scoop on what they're doing, would that be evil? Perhaps to some, but I value the information. It's a bit sleazy on the field, sure, but given that the information is known by intelligence agencies the next question is whether it is known to the public.