{"id":74421,"date":"2012-01-16T08:05:34","date_gmt":"2012-01-16T08:05:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2012\/01\/16\/la-vertu-de-stratfor\/"},"modified":"2012-01-16T08:05:34","modified_gmt":"2012-01-16T08:05:34","slug":"la-vertu-de-stratfor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2012\/01\/16\/la-vertu-de-stratfor\/","title":{"rendered":"La vertu de STRATFOR<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Finalement, STRATFOR<\/em> est r\u00e9tabli dans ses us et coutumes. Son directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et fondateur, George Friedman, s’explique \u00e0 propos de l’attaque dont le site a \u00e9t\u00e9 victime. Il d\u00e9taille les circonstances telles qu’il les conna\u00eet, et celles qu’il juge de son int\u00e9r\u00eat de d\u00e9tailler, proclame une nouvelle marche en avant du site, sa confiance dans l’avenir et ainsi de suite. Nous publions par ailleurs, en Ouverture libre<\/em>, ce 16 janvier 2012<\/a>, ce texte qui a sa place dans le dossier<\/a> de cette int\u00e9ressante affaire, puisqu’il en donne la version officielle, du point de vue de STRATFOR<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCi-dessous, nous reprenons le passage qui nous int\u00e9resse, qui concerne la le\u00e7on de morale, et \u00e9ventuellement de ce qui serait une sorte de vertu de communication du type Internet, selon George Friedman et STRATFOR<\/em>. Friedman s’adresse \u00e0 ses agresseurs, il tire le bilan de leur attaque, il dresse le constat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, selon lui, de cette aventure. Sa le\u00e7on de vertu de communication se trouve, \u00e0 notre avis, dans les paragraphes ci-dessous, et c’est elle que nous nous permettrons de commenter.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIn the days that followed, a narrative evolved among people claiming to speak for Anonymous and related groups. It started with looking at our subscriber list and extracting corporate subscribers who were now designated as clients. The difference between clients and subscribers is important here. A client is someone you do customized work for. A subscriber is simply someone who purchases a publication, unchanged from what others read. A subscriber of The New York Times is not its client. Nevertheless, some of the media started referring to these subscribers as clients, reflecting the narrative of those claiming to speak with knowledge of our business.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFrom there, the storyline grew to argue that these \u00ab\u00a0clients,\u00a0\u00bb corporate and government, provided Stratfor with classified intelligence that we reviewed. We were no longer an organization that analyzed the world for the interested public, but rather a group of incompetents and, conversely, the hub of a global conspiracy. The media focused on the first while the hacking community focused on the second.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThis was why they stole our email, according to some of them. As one person said, the credit cards were extra, something they took when they realized they could. It was our email they were after. Obviously, we were not happy to see our emails taken. God knows what a hundred employees writing endless emails might say that is embarrassing, stupid or subject to misinterpretation. What will not appear is classified intelligence from corporations or governments. They may find, depending on what they took, that we have sources around the world, as you might expect. It is interesting that the hacker community is split, with someone claiming to speak for the official Anonymous condemning the hack as an attack on the media, which they don’t sanction, and another faction defending it as an attack on the rich and powerful.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe interpretation of the hackers as to who we are if indeed that was their interpretation was so wildly off base as to stretch credulity. Of course, we know who we are. As they search our emails for signs of a vast conspiracy, they will be disappointed. Of course we have relationships with people in the U.S. and other governments and obviously we know people in corporations, and that will be discovered in the emails. But that’s our job. We are what we said we were: an organization that generates its revenues through geopolitical analysis. At the core of our business, we objectively acquire, organize, analyze and distribute information.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI don’t know if the hackers who did this feel remorse as they discover that we aren’t who they said we were. First, I don’t know who they actually are, and second, I don’t know what their motives were. I know only what people claiming to be them say. So I don’t know if there is remorse or if their real purpose was to humiliate and silence us, in which case I don’t know why they wanted that.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd this points to the real problem, the one that goes beyond Stratfor’s own problem. The Internet has become an indispensible part of our lives. We shop, communicate, publish and read on it. It has become the village commons of the planet. But in the village commons of old, neighbors who knew and recognized each other met and lived together. Others knew what they did in the commons, and they were accountable.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn the global commons, anonymity is an option. This is one of the great virtues of the Internet. It is also a terrible weakness. It is possible to commit crimes on the Internet anonymously. The technology that enables the Internet also undermines accountability. Given the profusion of technical knowledge, the integrity of the commons is in the hands of people whose identities we don’t know, whose motives we don’t understand, and whose ability to cause harm is substantial. The consequence of this will not be a glorious anarchy in the spirit of Guy Fawkes, but rather a massive repression. I think this is a pity. That’s why I wonder who the hackers actually are and what cause they serve. I am curious as to whether they realize the whirlwind they are sowing, and whether they, in fact, are trying to generate the repression they say they oppose.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe attempt to silence us failed<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe dernier paragraphe plein exprime bien la vertu de communication de STRATOR<\/em>, ou la vertu du syst\u00e8me de la communication lorsqu’il pr\u00e9sente sa face de Janus<\/a> pour laquelle le Syst\u00e8me l’a cr\u00e9\u00e9. On peut m\u00eame douter, sans h\u00e9sitation, que cette vertu soit feinte ou cyniquement pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e, tant cette phrase (\u00abThe attempt to silence us failed<\/em>\u00bb), extr\u00eamement ridicule lorsqu’on songe \u00e0 la puissance de STRATFOR<\/em> et \u00e0 ses diverses connexions, a une sorte d’accent de sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9. Friedman parle comme l’humble \u00e9diteur d’un site ind\u00e9pendant et sans liens de connivence avec le Syst\u00e8me, r\u00e9sistant courageux et professionnel ent\u00eat\u00e9, aux moyens limit\u00e9s, victime d’une cabale de m\u00e9chantes gens (anonymes, en plus !), aux moyens consid\u00e9rables, eux, agissant dans l’ombre et sans piti\u00e9 ni respect des r\u00e8gles d\u00e9mocratiques ; bref, il ne parle pas diff\u00e9remment de ce que ferait dedefensa.org<\/em> dans une circonstance similaire, si dedefensa.org<\/em> \u00e9tait honor\u00e9 des vertus parcellaires qu’on a dites, qui forment la vertu de communication.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFriedman parle sinc\u00e8rement de cette fa\u00e7on vertueuse parce que, finalement, la vertu de communication, c’est d’abord la vertu des march\u00e9s et la vertu d\u00e9mocratique selon l’interpr\u00e9tation qu’en donne la vertu des march\u00e9s. Tout cela, dira-t-on, s’accorde parfaitement avec le Syst\u00e8me, mais pour Friedman tout cela s’accorde simplement avec la vertu per se<\/em>. La messe est dite, dira-t-on, et, pour cette fois, Friedman en est le Bossuet. Que l’on nous suive ou pas, nous r\u00e9affirmons avec force qu’il y a de la sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans tout cela, qui est la sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9 que la raison totalement subvertie par le Syst\u00e8me (vieille histoire du d\u00e9cha\u00eenement de la Mati\u00e8re<\/a>) manifeste sous la forme de cette le\u00e7on de morale ; laquelle s’\u00e9nonce de la sorte : Nous (STRATFOR<\/em>) agissons \u00e0 visage d\u00e9couvert et tout le monde sait, comme nous-m\u00eames, qui nous sommes (\u00abwe know who we are<\/em>\u00bb, aveu charmant et si sinc\u00e8re) et ce que nous faisons<\/a>, et ainsi participons-nous \u00e0 la vertu d’Internet ; d’autres agissent anonymement, ce qu’Internet n’interdit pas, mais parfois que de laides choses sont faites au nom de ce lib\u00e9ralisme Mais on ne nous arr\u00eatera pas pour autant (\u00abThe attempt to silence us failed<\/em>\u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL\u00e0-dessus vient l’hom\u00e9lie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et furieuse (Bossuet, toujours) de la le\u00e7on de morale : Malheureux anonymes, vous qui attaquez la vertu de communication’ (STRATFOR<\/em>), regardez ce que vous avez provoqu\u00e9, puisqu’il ne fait aucun doute qu’\u00e0 la suite de cette attaque la punition sera terrible (\u00abThe consequence of this will not be a glorious anarchy in the spirit of Guy Fawkes, but rather a massive r\u00e9pression<\/em>\u00bb, cela, avec l’allusion qui montre qu’on a des lettres, \u00e0 V for Vendetta<\/em>, film rendu c\u00e9l\u00e8bre par le fameux masque ricanant qui caract\u00e9rise tous les Anonymous<\/em> du monde). Eh bien, Friedman-Bossuet en est sinc\u00e8rement marri pour la vertu d’Internet : \u00abI think this is a pity.<\/em>\u00bb Tout cela, en toute parfaite sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9. (Il n’emp\u00eache que \u00e7a va cogner, massive repression<\/em>, ce qui fait un peu moins Bossuet.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe point le plus int\u00e9ressant, apr\u00e8s tout, est l’obsession complotistes de Friedman, lorsqu’il rapporte que le but de ses agresseurs \u00e9tait de briser STRATFOR<\/em> en tant que \u00abhub of a global conspiracy<\/em>\u00bb. Personne n’a jamais dit que STRATFOR<\/em> \u00e9tait une partie ou le meneur d’une conspiration globale, parce que nul n’ignore ce qu’il en est. Tout le monde sait ce qu’est STRATFOR<\/em>, depuis le d\u00e9but, et personne n’en doute un instant. Il n’y a pas de conspiration globale l\u00e0-dedans, mais le Syst\u00e8me \u00e0 ciel ouvert, parfaitement identifi\u00e9, parfaitement compr\u00e9hensible. STRATFOR<\/em>, lui, n’a pas besoin du masque ricanant de V for Vendetta<\/em>, le visage de George Friedman suffit. Quant \u00e0 la terrible r\u00e9pression que nous promet, d\u00e9sol\u00e9, Friedman-Bossuet, nous avons une absolue confiance dans elle, et nous ne pouvons que nous en r\u00e9jouir ; STRATFOR<\/em> hyperprot\u00e9g\u00e9, comme le reste, c’est le bordel<\/a> g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du syst\u00e8me de la communication du Syst\u00e8me encore plus englu\u00e9 dans ses inextricables r\u00e9seaux, et c’est sa psychologie enferm\u00e9 un peu plus dans l’obsession de toutes ces forces obscures qui ne cessent de menacer, avec quelle vindicte envieuse et quelle cruaut\u00e9 barbare, sa vertu de communication. Donnez-nous dix, cent, mille STRATFOR<\/em> hyperprot\u00e9g\u00e9s, pour achever de noyer la surpuissance du Syst\u00e8me dans son d\u00e9lire d’autodestruction qui encha\u00eene le pauvre sapiens<\/em> dans les liens de son vanitas vanitatis<\/em> Ainsi Bossuet aurait-il pu conclure avec emphase et certitude intuitive, devant le grand Roi-Soleil (anonyme), interloqu\u00e9 et clou\u00e9 \u00e0 la fois par ce d\u00e9ferlement venu de la chaire furieuse.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 16 janvier 2012 08H06<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Finalement, STRATFOR est r\u00e9tabli dans ses us et coutumes. Son directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et fondateur, George Friedman, s’explique \u00e0 propos de l’attaque dont le site a \u00e9t\u00e9 victime. Il d\u00e9taille les circonstances telles qu’il les conna\u00eet, et celles qu’il juge de son int\u00e9r\u00eat de d\u00e9tailler, proclame une nouvelle marche en avant du site, sa confiance dans… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[14560,4270,14559,3015,4926,2631,1268,2622,6405,3160,11131,3014,5045],"class_list":["post-74421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-anionymous","tag-autodestruction","tag-bossuet","tag-communication","tag-complot","tag-de","tag-friedman","tag-la","tag-sincerite","tag-stratfor","tag-surpuissance","tag-systeme","tag-vertu"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}