US firm spied on Bhopal activists for Dow: WikiLeaks

[Are_grits_groceries]

New Delhi: Whistleblower website WikiLeaks on Monday claimed to have in possession 'millions' of Stratfor mails that establish its links with Dow Chemicals, one of the prime accused in the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster. Stratfor is a US-based intelligence firm.

WikiLeaks alleged that it had proof that Stratfor monitored and analysed online activities of the Bhopal activists, reportedly on Dow's asking.

One of the activists, Rachna Dhingra said that she was not surprised at the expose. "We are not suprised. Dow Chemicals is a dirty company. Spying seems to be just one of its measures."

The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011, WikiLeaks said.

"They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency," WikiLeaks alleged.
<snip>
http://m.ibnlive.com/news/dow-asked-us-firm-stratfor-to-spy-on-bhopal-activists-wikileaks/234280-3.html

The world now resembles Spy vs Spy from MAD magazine.

[jberryhill]

1. Specifically what does this mean...

"Stratfor monitored and analysed online activities of the Bhopal activists"

Okay, they read and summarized things that activists - whose goal is to get their message noticed - wrote.

And?

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Who knows where this info went from there?

Did it go to the Indian Government who could use at some time against them? Did it go somewhere else?
Stratfor does not do this out the goodness of their hearts.

[jberryhill]

3. What information are we talking about?

First off, the Indian government is perfectly well aware that the courts of that same government have criminally indicted a number of Union Carbide employees who are in the US.

No, Stratfor doesn't do anything "out of the goodness of their hearts" and neither does any other business. What they do is read and summarize stuff for their customers who want to know what is going on in a particular area or related to a particular issue.

Activists are, in general, persons seeking to bring attention to a cause or issue.

What is it that Stratfor was doing, specifically? Providing reports to Dow on the activities of activists. Is Dow not one of the intended recipients of the message the activists are trying to send?

That's why I'm asking what is the claim here? That Dow hired someone to tell them what activists were saying and doing?

It's like the "police were videotaping our protest against the police" thing that gets posted every now and then. Well, golly, then we can assume they got the message, no?

To simplify: the point of protesting is to GET ATTENTION of the target of the protest. Would a better headline be "Dow ignores protesters"?

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. You go ahead and trust them and

chalk it up to legitimate and/or harmless activity. I don't trust any of them.
In addition, Stratfor has a lot of resources doing who knows what for who knows who.

Keep on giving the benefit of the doubt after a lot of governments and other groups are not fond of dissension. That's your position and you are welcome to it.

[jberryhill]

5. I'm not trusting anyone

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm simply asking you - what did they do?

Please explain to me who it is you think I am either trusting or giving the benefit of the doubt.

I'm asking a pretty simple question. What did Stratfor do to these people. Obviously it must be pretty bad. What was it?

But I'm totally flummoxed by the notion that the Indian government - which has been trying to arrest US executives for years over Bhopal - somehow has it in for the activists. Their interests have been aligned for a long time.

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. Stratfor was gathering and monitoring them and

their activities. Stratfor was the first step in what may or may not lead to some reprisal against the activists if it is deemed necessary. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that the government and others have amassed lots of info about these people. That is a common prctice.

Whether their is action taken against them now or later remains to be seen. What if Stratfor was doing this for the government of Iran? Would you view this as innocuous?

I don't trust those who are collecting this info at all.

[jberryhill]

11. "I don't trust those who are collecting this info at all"

What info?

It says that Stratfor was monitoring and analyzing online activities.

So, why do you post to DU? Did you know that other people can read it?

I am sure there are people hired by the government of Iran who (a) read stuff online and (b) summarize it for the government of Iran. Whoop de freaking doo - anyone can read anything on the internet.

Again, your point is that Dow should ignore protesters and not listen to what they are saying, yes?

I really have to question your understanding of what has been going on with the Bhopal incident. The activists and the Indian government are on the same side:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/asia/08bhopal.html?_r=0

The eight convictions were announced after a bitter quarter-century-long court battle. Initially the defendants were charged with culpable homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, but India’s Supreme Court reduced the charges.

Indian authorities tried unsuccessfully to prosecute Warren M. Anderson, chairman of Union Carbide at the time of the leak. Mr. Anderson, now nearly 90, came to India after the disaster and was briefly arrested, then released on bail. His bail expired years ago and he is considered an absconder by Indian courts.

[bemildred]

6. To a certain point I agree with you.

As in: what's the big deal? So they are in the information business.

On the other hand, this does make clear that they are spooks, paid disseminators of information, a public relations firm, and that distinction is important, since they often present themselves as independent "news" or "analysis".

I used to read them a good deal, but after a while they became too predictable, I think precisely for the reasons I mentioned above.

[jberryhill]

7. I don't know what I said with which one can "agree" or "disagree"

I just don't know what "monitoring and analyzing" is.

Most of what used to go on at the CIA, in terms of "gathering intelligence", was "reading newspapers". They had all kinds of people who could read all kinds of languages, and they would sit around, read newspapers from all over the world, and categorize what they read by topic, so that if the administration needed a report on "what's going on with (whatever)" that information could be retrieved and summarized.

There's nothing shocking about a company wanting to know what protesters against the company are saying, and outsourcing the function of listening to the protesters and summarizing it for the company. Why wouldn't any company do that?

But when words like "monitoring and analyzing" are used, it sounds a lot more sexy than "reading their blog posts and summarizing them".

The interesting thing here is that the report posted is based on the claim that Wikileaks has obtained a bunch of internal emails and, per usual, isn't publishing them, but has provided a vague general summary of them. And I'm accused in the thread of being too trusting. Oh well.

[bemildred]

9. I agree that it's not shocking? nt

[jberryhill]

10. Oh

I'm prepared to be shocked if I had a clue what "it" was supposed to be.

But, per usual, Wikileaks isn't releasing the emails, so we don't know what "it" is.