STRATFOR E-Mail #6: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. 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. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Re: [alpha] sourcing insight

Email-ID        909781

Date    2011-07-29 22:58:35

From    [email protected]

To      [email protected]

List-Name       [email protected]

We need to change that. A simple email to IT before a trip gets you off

the list.

From: Kamran Bokhari

Reply-To: Alpha List

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:51:42 -0400

To:

Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight

Ok, but even when I have been outside the continent I have still been on

secure.

On 7/29/11 4:03 PM, scott stewart wrote:

 

Yeah. We don't consider Canada to really be overseas.

From: Kamran Bokhari

Reply-To: Alpha List

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:49:34 -0400

To:

Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight

I have always been secure even though I am always overseas.

 

On 7/29/11 2:59 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 

Ok, good question.

 

The secure list is not supposed to have anyone overseas on it. (And

as a side note, if you are traveling overseas you need to get yourself

off this list while out of the country.) We have many WOs overseas

and so when we send something to secure it is just one more way we are

trying to protect sourcing by not having it sent over international

wires (yes, of course, there are many ways that foreigners can access

any insight sent from anywhere at anytime, but it is somewhat more

secure when we email only within CONUS). So either a source or

insight that is highly sensitive needs to go to the secure list only,

and that means that we send it in ourselves because the overseas WOs

won't be able to pick it up.

 

Alpha goes to analysts/writers (and the few others selected on this

list) and not ADPs or Interns, including to analysts/writers overseas.

 

On 7/29/11 1:50 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

 

your last line in the P.S.... said to send things directly to

secure... I wanted to know if that meant only to secure or to alpha

too.

I think there is still some confusion over which list is which.

On 7/29/11 1:47 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 

I don't understand your question. This applies to both lists.

All sources need IDs (as mentioned in my PS - does that answer

your question?).

 

As to the question of sending from BBs, I definitely understand

that issue. When you return to your computer, please reply to the

insight sent out with the full coding. We need this info to

really track insight and any changes over time.

 

On 7/29/11 1:45 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

 

secure or alpha?

 

On 7/29/11 1:41 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 

We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again. Not only do you need to

put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories

need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

 

SOURCE: code

ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a

publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source

on the ground, etc

SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of

the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the

source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight

PUBLICATION: Yes or no. If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will

publish it, but only that we can publish it.

SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst. this

grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests

ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we may

change the range here in the future). this changes a lot based on the

info provided. 1 is "you can take this to the bank" and 10 would be an

example of maybe - "this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something

that is spreading on the ground"

SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is "none" but it may be something like, "if

you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in the

publication" or any other special notes

SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and

communicate with the source

 

If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know. I'll

be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this process

in person we can do so soon. In the meantime, remember that every piece

of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you

picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear

from again. Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the

SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not

coding them.

 

Jen

PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send directly

- not thru a WO - to the "secure" list. Secure list insights still need

the above ID tags.

 

 

--

Lauren Goodrich

Senior Eurasia Analyst

STRATFOR

T: 512.744.4311

F: 512.744.4334

www.stratfor.com

 

--

Jennifer Richmond

STRATFOR

China Director

Director of International Projects

(512) 422-9335

 

--

Lauren Goodrich

Senior Eurasia Analyst

STRATFOR

T: 512.744.4311

F: 512.744.4334

www.stratfor.com

 

--

Jennifer Richmond

STRATFOR

China Director

Director of International Projects

(512) 422-9335