3 ms·

Elon Musk Acknowledges Withholding Satellite Service to Thwart Ukrainian Attack

15 points by mhb 3y ago

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Thinking about this story last night I visualised three axes on which to place technology (probably greatly influenced by Postman and Mumford). The first axis, 0 to 1, is the value axis, from "technology is neutral (0)?" to "technology is political (1)?". The second axis is a malevolence/beneficence scale, Technology is either a universal utility, as a tool (1) or a weapon (0) for entirely destructive purposes. Third, is a technology public or private? Public technologies (1) are basically open, accessible science, free for all to create. An example of a "private" technology (0) might be a nuclear power plant, since regardless of state or corporate ownership the average person is unable to make one. Code has enabled a more public face of tech, but that is subtracted from by centralised "cloud" industries. So far all good as a offhand taxonomy for tech... But then the real question is, where does a given person's psychological attitude towards tech lie in that space? Most tech entrepreneurs probably imagine themselves in a neutral/benificent/private cluster. Perhaps free-software advocates would occupy a political/benificent/public cluster. Musk claimed to be outraged that 'his creation is not being used for good'. But I think that's hypocritical posturing. Musk looks a lot like someone whose stance on technology is about private power and clusters in the political/benevolent/private corner of the cube. Or maybe worse; he's pissed of that someone else is using his weapon to fight wars other than his own campaign for world domination.
- HelloNurse 3y ago
  Or he has Russian friends.
ironyman 3y ago
TLDR: SpaceX blocks Ukraine from using Starlink on drones because US law requires them to unless they have a specific license from the government, which Starlink in Ukraine lacks. "Modifications to Starlink Products & Export Controls. Starlink Kits and Services are commercial communication products. Off-the-shelf, Starlink can provide communication capabilities to a variety of end-users, such as consumers, schools, businesses and other commercial entities, hospitals, humanitarian organizations, non-governmental and governmental organizations in support of critical infrastructure and other services, including during times of crisis. However, Starlink is not designed or intended for use with or in offensive or defensive weaponry or other comparable end-uses. Custom modifications of the Starlink Kits or Services for military end-uses or military end-users may transform the items into products controlled under U.S. export control laws, specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774) requiring authorizations from the United States government for the export, support, or use outside the United States. Starlink aftersales support to customers is limited exclusively to standard commercial service support. At its sole discretion, Starlink may refuse to provide technical support to any modified Starlink products and is grounds for termination of this Agreement" Starlink Terms of Service, Section 8.5
- sanderjd 3y ago
  That's all fine and good. But if, as is being reported, this was a personal decision by Musk, that is not an implementation of this policy. This kind of individual discretion over company operations is a process failure, at the very least, and I'd say it's a dangerous risk that cries out for public regulation.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    The policy was posted around this time. When an individual goes in an individual decides. Hence contracts
helge9210 3y ago
I was under impression, that providing service in and around Crimea would be a violation of the current sanctions. So, I guess, for any request by Ukrainian government directly to US-based company to provide communication service over sanctioned territory in a warzone the default answer would be "No".
- jrflowers 3y ago
  This makes sense. That would explain why the US has provided no military or financial support for Ukraine — its hands are tied by sanctions.
  - helge9210 3y ago
    US support went through formal approval process.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      This didn't, or did it?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

15 points by mhb 3y ago

Thinking about this story last night I visualised three axes on which to place technology (probably greatly influenced by Postman and Mumford). The first axis, 0 to 1, is the value axis, from "technology is neutral (0)?" to "technology is political (1)?". The second axis is a malevolence/beneficence scale, Technology is either a universal utility, as a tool (1) or a weapon (0) for entirely destructive purposes. Third, is a technology public or private? Public technologies (1) are basically open, accessible science, free for all to create. An example of a "private" technology (0) might be a nuclear power plant, since regardless of state or corporate ownership the average person is unable to make one. Code has enabled a more public face of tech, but that is subtracted from by centralised "cloud" industries. So far all good as a offhand taxonomy for tech... But then the real question is, where does a given person's psychological attitude towards tech lie in that space? Most tech entrepreneurs probably imagine themselves in a neutral/benificent/private cluster. Perhaps free-software advocates would occupy a political/benificent/public cluster. Musk claimed to be outraged that 'his creation is not being used for good'. But I think that's hypocritical posturing. Musk looks a lot like someone whose stance on technology is about private power and clusters in the political/benevolent/private corner of the cube. Or maybe worse; he's pissed of that someone else is using his weapon to fight wars other than his own campaign for world domination.

HelloNurse 3y ago
Or he has Russian friends.

ironyman 3y ago

TLDR: SpaceX blocks Ukraine from using Starlink on drones because US law requires them to unless they have a specific license from the government, which Starlink in Ukraine lacks. "Modifications to Starlink Products & Export Controls. Starlink Kits and Services are commercial communication products. Off-the-shelf, Starlink can provide communication capabilities to a variety of end-users, such as consumers, schools, businesses and other commercial entities, hospitals, humanitarian organizations, non-governmental and governmental organizations in support of critical infrastructure and other services, including during times of crisis. However, Starlink is not designed or intended for use with or in offensive or defensive weaponry or other comparable end-uses. Custom modifications of the Starlink Kits or Services for military end-uses or military end-users may transform the items into products controlled under U.S. export control laws, specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774) requiring authorizations from the United States government for the export, support, or use outside the United States. Starlink aftersales support to customers is limited exclusively to standard commercial service support. At its sole discretion, Starlink may refuse to provide technical support to any modified Starlink products and is grounds for termination of this Agreement" Starlink Terms of Service, Section 8.5

sanderjd 3y ago
That's all fine and good. But if, as is being reported, this was a personal decision by Musk, that is not an implementation of this policy. This kind of individual discretion over company operations is a process failure, at the very least, and I'd say it's a dangerous risk that cries out for public regulation.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  The policy was posted around this time. When an individual goes in an individual decides. Hence contracts

helge9210 3y ago

I was under impression, that providing service in and around Crimea would be a violation of the current sanctions. So, I guess, for any request by Ukrainian government directly to US-based company to provide communication service over sanctioned territory in a warzone the default answer would be "No".

jrflowers 3y ago
This makes sense. That would explain why the US has provided no military or financial support for Ukraine — its hands are tied by sanctions.
- helge9210 3y ago
  US support went through formal approval process.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    This didn't, or did it?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]