4 ms·
I don’t agree because bandwidth isn’t the only part of nominal operations in a war zone. You’re also painting a bright red target on your back for the highly so
by oceanplexian 4y ago
I don’t agree because bandwidth isn’t the only part of nominal operations in a war zone. You’re also painting a bright red target on your back for the highly sophisticated state actors (On the level that they might bribe or threaten employees, try to infiltrate the company, etc.) If I were SpaceX I wouldn’t want any part of it.
- rtkwe 4y agoThose are all things they should already be guarding against though for the most part and definitely not a cost incurred per unit. If they're not already doing tons of work to secure against malicious employees they're a joke of an ISP to begin with.
- DennisP 4y agoSecurity isn't binary. There's a difference between normal commercial-grade security, and being actively engaged in warfare against an adversary with serious cyber and space warfare capabilities.
- rtkwe 4y agoSpace doesn't matter here, if Russia decides to mess with StarLink by shooting down satellites there's nothing SpaceX can do beyond launching replacements. So we're back to the more normal security they should already be doing because ISPs are already huge targets for state level actors even if you're not involved in a war.