????撇開這些郵件的真實(shí)性仍待考證不談，發(fā)布這些多的郵件本身就帶來了各種各樣的潛在問題,。這些郵件就那樣發(fā)布在網(wǎng)上,，沒有點(diǎn)評,，沒有來龍去脈，也沒有任何解釋,。比如,，可口可樂和PETA的郵件，如果只看維基解密的標(biāo)題《可口可樂雇Stratfor調(diào)查PETA的底細(xì)》（Coca Cola Contracting Stratfor to Spy on Peta.）,，聽起來似乎有些不可告人,。但作為企業(yè)，搜集一些可能給它們帶來公關(guān)問題的組織和團(tuán)體的信息是普遍的做法,，而且此案中可口可樂希望了解的信息似乎也無關(guān)緊要：PETA在加拿大有多大影響力？美國PETA活躍分子會不會前往溫哥華,？不清楚Stratfor究竟有何發(fā)現(xiàn),，或者對搜集到的信息做了什么處理。最讓人吃驚的是,，一位據(jù)稱是Stratfor員工的人在討論的最后寫道：“美國聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）對PETA的行動進(jìn)行了秘密調(diào)查,。我看看挖出什么消息?！?/p>

????目前不清楚這些行為是否違反了某些法律。陶氏化學(xué)已就Yes Men事宜發(fā)表了聲明：

????“包括陶氏化學(xué)在內(nèi)的大公司常常有義務(wù)采取適當(dāng)?shù)拇胧﹣肀Ｗo(hù)員工和全球范圍內(nèi)的設(shè)施安全,，避免公司及員工受到某些組織和個人的威脅,、干擾和歪曲宣傳。陶氏化學(xué)非常重視在法律允許的范圍內(nèi)確保員工和設(shè)施安全的職責(zé),，并將繼續(xù)依法履行這一職責(zé),。我們堅(jiān)決支持言論自由,，鼓勵公眾對重大事宜展開討論。雖然我們還沒有看到具體所涉文件,，但我們絕不容忍竊取私密文件,，,。”

????維基解密宣稱已與25家媒體公司達(dá)成合作來發(fā)布這些電子郵件,，包括美國兩家合作伙伴：麥克萊齊報業(yè)（McClatchy Newspapers）和《滾石》雜志（Rolling Stone）,。迄今為止，這兩個合作伙伴都未刊登任何與郵件有關(guān)的內(nèi)容,，因此記者們和其他人只能從海量的原始信息中慢慢揣摩,。

????去年年底，Stratfor的電腦顯然曾遭到黑客組織Anonymous（具體來說,，是其旗下的AntiSec）的入侵，數(shù)千位Stratfor用戶的信用卡數(shù)據(jù),、電子郵件地址等個人信息泄露,。雖然維基解密沒有披露獲取這些郵件的渠道，但維基解密這次發(fā)布的電子郵件看來很可能就是從那次入侵中獲得的,。

????Stratfor發(fā)布聲明稱,，散布這些電子郵件“嚴(yán)重侵犯隱私，是應(yīng)該遭到譴責(zé)的非法行為,。”

????“其中有些電子郵件可能是捏造的,，或者遭到了篡改,，含有不準(zhǔn)確的信息；有些可能是真的,，”這項(xiàng)聲明稱,。“我們不會對此進(jìn)行確認(rèn),。我們也不會解釋當(dāng)初的考慮。我們的文件已經(jīng)被盜,，我們不會回答關(guān)于這些文件的問題,，那無異于二次傷害,?！?/p>

????Beyond the fact that the authenticity of the emails has not yet been confirmed, the mere fact of such a data dump poses all kinds of potential problems. The emails are just sitting there, uncommented upon, with no context or interpretation given. The emails about Coke and PETA, for example, sound somewhat sinister judging by the WikiLeaks headline, "Coca Cola Contracting Stratfor to Spy on Peta." But it's common practice for companies to gather information on groups that might cause them PR problems, and the information Coke sought in this case seems fairly mundane: How strong is Peta in Canada? Might U.S. Peta activists travel to Vancouver? It's not clear what if anything Stratfor found out or what, if anything, was done about any information that it gathered. What's most striking is that a Stratfor employee purportedly wrote toward the end of the discussions: "The FBI has a classified investigation on PETA operatives. I'll see what I can uncover."

????It's not at all clear that any laws were broken by these activities. Dow Chemical has issued a statement on the Yes Men matter:

????"Major companies, including Dow, are often required to take appropriate action to protect their people and safeguard their facilities around the world from those who would threaten, disrupt and misrepresent the company and its employees. Dow takes the obligations to ensure the safety of its people and facilities seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of the law. We are strong proponents of free speech and encourage public debate on important issues. However, while we have not yet seen the specific documents in question, the theft of any private documents cannot be condoned."

????WikiLeaks says it has partnerships with 25 media companies to disseminate the emails. That includes two partners in the United States: McClatchy Newspapers and Rolling Stone magazine. So far, neither partner has published anything about the emails, leaving journalists and others to scramble to make sense out of the enormous amount of raw information.

????Stratfor's computers were invaded late last year apparently by the hacker/vandal group Anonymous (specifically, by its AntiSec wing), which revealed personal information such as credit-card data and email addresses of thousands of Stratfor customers. It seems likely that the emails posted by WikiLeaks came from that intrusion, though WikiLeaks isn't saying where it got them.

????Stratfor issued a statement calling the publication of the emails "a deplorable, unfortunate -- and illegal-- breach of privacy."

????"Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic," the statement continued. "We will not validate either. Nor will we explain the thinking that went into them. Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them."