5 ms·

Organizations that willfully violate the law, especially in ways that pose threats to the lives and property of others, should be terminated. The US government

by nxc18 9y ago

Organizations that willfully violate the law, especially in ways that pose threats to the lives and property of others, should be terminated. The US government granted them incorporation (or some similar status) and all the privileges that came with that. I wish the government would raise the cost of non-compliance by exercising it's right to revoke those privileges.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Couldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what they are doing without any need for US approval?
- nxc18 9y ago
  They could, and then it would be Taiwan or India's problem.
  - duck 9y ago
    Until one of their micro satellites hits one from the USA.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      ... in which case India or Taiwan would on the hook for it, if found out.
    - ben_w 9y ago
      If I understand correctly (and that’s a big if given I’m not any kind of lawyer, never mind an international treaty specialist) the country which allowed the launch is responsible for the damages in situations like that. So no, it’s still their problem.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        Only if the country has agreed to join that international treaty.
        gruez 9y ago
        That's a great way to get your satellites "accidentally" hit in retaliation
    - pjg 9y ago
      China is the source of largest amount of space debris (as a result of testing their anti-satellite weapon). How will the US (or any other country ) know the country of origin of the space debris ?
      - rtkwe 9y ago
        The US (and presumably other countries like Russia and China) has a pretty robust tracking network that keeps track of pretty much everything in orbit above a certain size. With that info and when the strike actually happened it's pretty easy to backtrack to determine the possible culprits. http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-View/Article/976414/usstratcom-space-control-and-space-surveillance/ http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-View/Arti...
    - walrus01 9y ago
      The US has famously polluted elliptical orbits and low earth orbit with test garbage for 60 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/westford.htm http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/westford.htm
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Couldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what they are doing No. They would have to move operations abroad and convince a foreign country they’re worth the risk. (American operations of foreign companies are still subject to U.S. law.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - asdsa5325 9y ago
    Considering they launched the satellites in India's rocket, I think India would be fine with them.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - parent5446 9y ago
      Not exactly. It's unclear how they were able to launch successfully, but I doubt whatever mistake that occurred is indicative of the Indian government agreeing with the project. It's more likely they used social engineering of some sort to get their satellites on the rocket.
      - mcguire 9y ago
        They apparently used a third-party to fit in with the other secondary passengers: "Paperwork filed with the FCC by Swarm Technologies shows that it was planning to use Spaceflight, a Seattle-based launch services company, to get its satellites on board the PSLV. Spaceflight’s website shows that it did in fact supply 19 of the 31 satellites for January’s PSLV launch, including some with the SpaceBees unique 0.25U dimensions. "Last year, Spaceflight senior mission manager Adam Hadaller told Spectrum that it checked all its customers’ safety regulations and communication licenses before launch. However, in response to questions this week, Spaceflight would only say: “Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses.” "Neither Spaceflight nor ISRO could immediately confirm whether they routinely check launch customers’ FCC licenses. If they do not, there would seem to be little to stop satellite makers from deploying any device they choose into orbit."
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  If they punitively had their charter revoked and the corporation dissolved by the chartering state, no. A corporation can move, but not after a corporate death sentence is executed.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    The employees and officers of the company could obviously set up somewhere else afterwards, but what happens in such a case with the company's assets?
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Even in this case. The country from where they launched is fully liable; and the fact whether they can recover the money from the company (i.e. whether it exists or not) is irrelevant. If they didn't prevent the launch and didn't acquire appropriate safeguards or insurance (which would be feasible) it's their problem.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The US government granted them incorporation A state government did that, most likely.
sschueller 9y ago
I am saddened that this has become acceptable practice in silicon valley. Look at Uber and all the laws it broke. Sure Travis might be gone but the company stays and some people made a lot of money by breaking laws and exploiting others. For them it paid off and they will do it again.
- bryananderson 9y ago
  It is also worth noting that he is only “gone” in the sense of no longer working at the company. His extremely lucrative ownership stake is untouched. He will be allowed to profit handsomely from all of his illegal activities.
- fossuser 9y ago
  There's a difference between what is legal and what is right and the two don't always overlap. In the case of Uber, their initial ignoring of the laws protecting Taxis I think was a good thing. Though this doesn't hold true for the things they were later accused of.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Yeah, but they also didn't want others to be able to do what they did. If they really thought they were right, they would be lobbying to remove those medallion requirements for everyone, themselves and the taxi companies. They didn't.
    - fossuser 9y ago
      You can only fight a war on so many fronts, better to just ignore the medallions until you have power. Once you do that the medallions matter less anyway. If they tried to fight head on legally they likely would have lost (since that's probably where the taxi companies are strongest and incentivized to spend all of their money to win at any cost).
downrightmike 9y ago
Are you talking about Uber?
planteen 9y ago
I can't imagine this company will ever successfully be able to pull a license after this stunt. What a short sighted move.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Unless they received military assurances. There were a lot of DoD / armed forces mentions in the article... Edit: And now that I think about it... you'd imagine the minimum tracking size of the US radars would be fairly classified. And likely something not bandied about the FCC in detail.
slededit 9y ago
The FCC does appear to be vastly overstepping their bounds here. Nothing in their charter gives them the right to legislate the minimum size of satellites. Can we terminate them as well?
aqsalose 9y ago
Yeah. There some irony in the symbolism: this time we have a SV firm that launched satellites that literally move fast [1] and potentially break things (namely, other satellites). [1] See this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556716

by nxc18 9y ago

oh_sigh 9y ago

Couldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what they are doing without any need for US approval?

nxc18 9y ago
They could, and then it would be Taiwan or India's problem.
- duck 9y ago
  Until one of their micro satellites hits one from the USA.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    ... in which case India or Taiwan would on the hook for it, if found out.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    If I understand correctly (and that’s a big if given I’m not any kind of lawyer, never mind an international treaty specialist) the country which allowed the launch is responsible for the damages in situations like that. So no, it’s still their problem.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Only if the country has agreed to join that international treaty.
      - gruez 9y ago
        That's a great way to get your satellites "accidentally" hit in retaliation
  - pjg 9y ago
    China is the source of largest amount of space debris (as a result of testing their anti-satellite weapon). How will the US (or any other country ) know the country of origin of the space debris ?
    - rtkwe 9y ago
      The US (and presumably other countries like Russia and China) has a pretty robust tracking network that keeps track of pretty much everything in orbit above a certain size. With that info and when the strike actually happened it's pretty easy to backtrack to determine the possible culprits. http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-View/Article/976414/usstratcom-space-control-and-space-surveillance/ http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-View/Arti...
  - walrus01 9y ago
    The US has famously polluted elliptical orbits and low earth orbit with test garbage for 60 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/westford.htm http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/westford.htm
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Couldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what they are doing No. They would have to move operations abroad and convince a foreign country they’re worth the risk. (American operations of foreign companies are still subject to U.S. law.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- asdsa5325 9y ago
  Considering they launched the satellites in India's rocket, I think India would be fine with them.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - parent5446 9y ago
    Not exactly. It's unclear how they were able to launch successfully, but I doubt whatever mistake that occurred is indicative of the Indian government agreeing with the project. It's more likely they used social engineering of some sort to get their satellites on the rocket.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      They apparently used a third-party to fit in with the other secondary passengers: "Paperwork filed with the FCC by Swarm Technologies shows that it was planning to use Spaceflight, a Seattle-based launch services company, to get its satellites on board the PSLV. Spaceflight’s website shows that it did in fact supply 19 of the 31 satellites for January’s PSLV launch, including some with the SpaceBees unique 0.25U dimensions. "Last year, Spaceflight senior mission manager Adam Hadaller told Spectrum that it checked all its customers’ safety regulations and communication licenses before launch. However, in response to questions this week, Spaceflight would only say: “Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses.” "Neither Spaceflight nor ISRO could immediately confirm whether they routinely check launch customers’ FCC licenses. If they do not, there would seem to be little to stop satellite makers from deploying any device they choose into orbit."
dragonwriter 9y ago
If they punitively had their charter revoked and the corporation dissolved by the chartering state, no. A corporation can move, but not after a corporate death sentence is executed.
- mcguire 9y ago
  The employees and officers of the company could obviously set up somewhere else afterwards, but what happens in such a case with the company's assets?
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Even in this case. The country from where they launched is fully liable; and the fact whether they can recover the money from the company (i.e. whether it exists or not) is irrelevant. If they didn't prevent the launch and didn't acquire appropriate safeguards or insurance (which would be feasible) it's their problem.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The US government granted them incorporation A state government did that, most likely.

sschueller 9y ago

I am saddened that this has become acceptable practice in silicon valley. Look at Uber and all the laws it broke. Sure Travis might be gone but the company stays and some people made a lot of money by breaking laws and exploiting others. For them it paid off and they will do it again.

bryananderson 9y ago
It is also worth noting that he is only “gone” in the sense of no longer working at the company. His extremely lucrative ownership stake is untouched. He will be allowed to profit handsomely from all of his illegal activities.
fossuser 9y ago
There's a difference between what is legal and what is right and the two don't always overlap. In the case of Uber, their initial ignoring of the laws protecting Taxis I think was a good thing. Though this doesn't hold true for the things they were later accused of.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Yeah, but they also didn't want others to be able to do what they did. If they really thought they were right, they would be lobbying to remove those medallion requirements for everyone, themselves and the taxi companies. They didn't.
  - fossuser 9y ago
    You can only fight a war on so many fronts, better to just ignore the medallions until you have power. Once you do that the medallions matter less anyway. If they tried to fight head on legally they likely would have lost (since that's probably where the taxi companies are strongest and incentivized to spend all of their money to win at any cost).

downrightmike 9y ago

Are you talking about Uber?

planteen 9y ago

I can't imagine this company will ever successfully be able to pull a license after this stunt. What a short sighted move.

ethbro 9y ago
Unless they received military assurances. There were a lot of DoD / armed forces mentions in the article... Edit: And now that I think about it... you'd imagine the minimum tracking size of the US radars would be fairly classified. And likely something not bandied about the FCC in detail.

slededit 9y ago

The FCC does appear to be vastly overstepping their bounds here. Nothing in their charter gives them the right to legislate the minimum size of satellites. Can we terminate them as well?

aqsalose 9y ago

Yeah. There some irony in the symbolism: this time we have a SV firm that launched satellites that literally move fast [1] and potentially break things (namely, other satellites). [1] See this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556716