6 ms·

Musk claims that the fleet was entering into Crimea, a territory where the access was not available, and he refused to turn it on [1,2], and that he never actua

Musk claims that the fleet was entering into Crimea, a territory where the access was not available, and he refused to turn it on [1,2], and that he never actually turned anything off. He also claims that the terms of the Starlink usage agreement with Ukraine expressly prohibits using Starlink for offensive means. If true, this graph seems to show otherwise, UNLESS this was a mobile unit moving into the unserviced territory. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/09/08/elon-musk-calls-for-truce-between-russia-and-ukraine-as-he-denies-blocking-kyivs-starlink-access-during-major-offensive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/09/08/elon-musk... [2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/09/10/exp-ukraine-russia-vote-musk-starkink-live-pleitgen-091004aseg2-cnni-world.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/09/10/exp-ukraine-russ...

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Some folks in Congress are attempting to initiate a probe, so more information should be available soon. It probably will not look great. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha... > To the dismay of Pentagon officials, Musk volunteered that he had spoken with Putin personally. Another individual told me that Musk had made the same assertion in the weeks before he tweeted his pro-Russia peace plan, and had said that his consultations with the Kremlin were regular. > On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. “This was, like, three minutes before he said, ‘Well, I had this great conversation with Putin,’ ” the senior defense official told me. “And we were, like, ‘Oh, dear, this is not good.’ ”
- seafoam 3y ago
  > It probably will not look great Freedom of speech ... peace ... yeah, who does this guy think he is ?
  - jeezfrk 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - landoftheice 3y ago
      [dead]
  - piva00 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - taylodl 3y ago
    The United States is providing aid to the Ukraine to fight off Russia. While Russia may not technically be an enemy of the United States at the moment, the two nations aren't on the best of terms. This action can be construed as Musk aiding and abetting the Russians, with whom the United States is having "difficulties" with at the moment. Musk should keep in mind the United States has the power to denaturalize him and revoke his citizenship.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Denaturalizing and revoking citizenship would be the least worst outcome assuming the US government tires of someone providing an enemy nation state material support.
      - solardev 3y ago
        Would he even care? Probably a few dozen other nations would be happy to have him and his wealth. Billionaires like that exist outside the national borders that you and I live in... And plus, he probably still has South African citizenship?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        fakedang 3y ago
        He would definitely care if his assets were frozen and his companies nationalized, or at minimum, divested to another set of investors.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      He is literally the person outiside Ukraine who has done the most for Ukraine. Othernations couldnt buy capability that Starlink provides. And they got it for free for months. Starlink was attacked by Russians. So its ridiculous to claim Musk is some anti-Russian element.
      - 3y ago
- CommanderData 3y ago
  I don't see the same outrage for hundreds of privileged telecoms providers that also see at a higher and greater level of detail the same thing Elon was looking at, even lower level sysadmins. He's in charge of Starlink and it doesn't make any data privacy claims to prevent him from even intercepting data if he wanted to.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    If the CEO of Vodafone or something was saying that they could see military operations in the metadata, and also talking about their chats with Putin, _eyebrows would be raised_. (For a number of reasons; I'd be astonished if the CEO of Vodafone or similar has casual access to just look at call metadata for fun, plus also, yeah, the Implication).
  - PepperdineG 3y ago
    He has to tell the Ukrainians that he's using their data for chats with Putin: "We don’t knowingly sell your personal information, but we still have to tell you what we collect from you and how we use it." https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1000-41799-67?regionCode=Global https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1000-41799-67?r... Location data is specifically covered and Musk was not using the location data for 'goods and services' but instead in violation of privacy rights was using this information for geopolitics instead: "Location Data (not precise geolocation), which includes your general location in order to provide you with the appropriate goods and services."
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Outrage doesn’t need to be equal. There is zero need for plebs to be defending a mentally ill billionaire on HN or anywhere else.
    - decremental 3y ago
      [dead]
  - salawat 3y ago
    The fact you haven't heard that outrage simply suggests that you haven't been a network operator before. We have an RFC, in fact, that addresses this very point. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925 Note truth number 4: > (4) Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational network. Most people have not ever wrestled with operating a network. To get outraged about the exploitation of user activity/metadata and violation of end user trust perpetrated by today's network operators, you have to have wrestled with having at least tried to operate or build out one yourself. Only once you have (and it doesn't take many) multiple users completely dependent on you as a single point of failure or as a vector for intrusion into their intimate affairs, will you truly appreciate the burning white anger the more ethical of us feel at the behavior of the largest network operators. In fact, policymakers and law enforcement have all but weaponized that fact. Usually couching any further abrogation or unraveling of end user expectation of privacy under the guise of "keeping you safe" or "protecting the children" (which a vast majority experience first hand), without at the same time pointing out that "oh, hey, this means we basically get to intrude on all activity you conduct over a network". Which nowadays is "all activity you conduct with someone else that doesn't involve meeting face to face" Which is a lot. Think about that long and hard.
r721 3y ago
It's the moment of this night's attack what is depicted on OP's graph, here is a news story: >Ukrainian missiles strike Russian warships in Crimean naval base >Russia’s Defense Ministry said Ukrainian armed forces attacked the Sergo Ordzhonikidze shipyard in Sevastopol, which Russia uses as a repair base for its Black Sea Fleet, with 10 cruise missiles and three unmanned boats. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/13/europe/crimea-missile-attack-ukraine-russia-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/13/europe/crimea-missile-att...
- morkalork 3y ago
  Yes, the implication being that there's been a second round of funny business by mr musk. I cannot comprehend how self-sabotaging this is. Ok, sure, starlink was going to have rural subscribers which is a lot of people but not as nearly a large market as urban telecom. And yeah, they'd have some customers in less developed countries that lack infrastructure. And sure, there's maritime shipping. But at the end of the day the real money maker, the one they could charge a premium to, was going to be the DoD. And he's pissing all over them.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure the US DoD has its own network of satellites for communications and has had one before Starlink.
    - chpatrick 3y ago
      I don't know if anyone's ever had the scale of launches necessary for a system like Starlink though. As far as I know rocket launches are public even if what they're carrying is confidential.
    - oceanplexian 3y ago
      I’m sure they do, and it’s probably 45 years behind Starlink technologically. Starlink is the only game in town for low latency, high bandwidth satellite communications.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Some folks in Congress are attempting to initiate a probe, so more information should be available soon. It probably will not look great. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha... > To the dismay of Pentagon officials, Musk volunteered that he had spoken with Putin personally. Another individual told me that Musk had made the same assertion in the weeks before he tweeted his pro-Russia peace plan, and had said that his consultations with the Kremlin were regular. > On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. “This was, like, three minutes before he said, ‘Well, I had this great conversation with Putin,’ ” the senior defense official told me. “And we were, like, ‘Oh, dear, this is not good.’ ”

seafoam 3y ago
> It probably will not look great Freedom of speech ... peace ... yeah, who does this guy think he is ?
- jeezfrk 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - landoftheice 3y ago
    [dead]
- piva00 3y ago
  [flagged]
- taylodl 3y ago
  The United States is providing aid to the Ukraine to fight off Russia. While Russia may not technically be an enemy of the United States at the moment, the two nations aren't on the best of terms. This action can be construed as Musk aiding and abetting the Russians, with whom the United States is having "difficulties" with at the moment. Musk should keep in mind the United States has the power to denaturalize him and revoke his citizenship.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Denaturalizing and revoking citizenship would be the least worst outcome assuming the US government tires of someone providing an enemy nation state material support.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Would he even care? Probably a few dozen other nations would be happy to have him and his wealth. Billionaires like that exist outside the national borders that you and I live in... And plus, he probably still has South African citizenship?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - fakedang 3y ago
        He would definitely care if his assets were frozen and his companies nationalized, or at minimum, divested to another set of investors.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    He is literally the person outiside Ukraine who has done the most for Ukraine. Othernations couldnt buy capability that Starlink provides. And they got it for free for months. Starlink was attacked by Russians. So its ridiculous to claim Musk is some anti-Russian element.
    - 3y ago
CommanderData 3y ago
I don't see the same outrage for hundreds of privileged telecoms providers that also see at a higher and greater level of detail the same thing Elon was looking at, even lower level sysadmins. He's in charge of Starlink and it doesn't make any data privacy claims to prevent him from even intercepting data if he wanted to.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  If the CEO of Vodafone or something was saying that they could see military operations in the metadata, and also talking about their chats with Putin, _eyebrows would be raised_. (For a number of reasons; I'd be astonished if the CEO of Vodafone or similar has casual access to just look at call metadata for fun, plus also, yeah, the Implication).
- PepperdineG 3y ago
  He has to tell the Ukrainians that he's using their data for chats with Putin: "We don’t knowingly sell your personal information, but we still have to tell you what we collect from you and how we use it." https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1000-41799-67?regionCode=Global https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1000-41799-67?r... Location data is specifically covered and Musk was not using the location data for 'goods and services' but instead in violation of privacy rights was using this information for geopolitics instead: "Location Data (not precise geolocation), which includes your general location in order to provide you with the appropriate goods and services."
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Outrage doesn’t need to be equal. There is zero need for plebs to be defending a mentally ill billionaire on HN or anywhere else.
  - decremental 3y ago
    [dead]
- salawat 3y ago
  The fact you haven't heard that outrage simply suggests that you haven't been a network operator before. We have an RFC, in fact, that addresses this very point. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925 Note truth number 4: > (4) Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational network. Most people have not ever wrestled with operating a network. To get outraged about the exploitation of user activity/metadata and violation of end user trust perpetrated by today's network operators, you have to have wrestled with having at least tried to operate or build out one yourself. Only once you have (and it doesn't take many) multiple users completely dependent on you as a single point of failure or as a vector for intrusion into their intimate affairs, will you truly appreciate the burning white anger the more ethical of us feel at the behavior of the largest network operators. In fact, policymakers and law enforcement have all but weaponized that fact. Usually couching any further abrogation or unraveling of end user expectation of privacy under the guise of "keeping you safe" or "protecting the children" (which a vast majority experience first hand), without at the same time pointing out that "oh, hey, this means we basically get to intrude on all activity you conduct over a network". Which nowadays is "all activity you conduct with someone else that doesn't involve meeting face to face" Which is a lot. Think about that long and hard.

r721 3y ago

It's the moment of this night's attack what is depicted on OP's graph, here is a news story: >Ukrainian missiles strike Russian warships in Crimean naval base >Russia’s Defense Ministry said Ukrainian armed forces attacked the Sergo Ordzhonikidze shipyard in Sevastopol, which Russia uses as a repair base for its Black Sea Fleet, with 10 cruise missiles and three unmanned boats. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/13/europe/crimea-missile-attack-ukraine-russia-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/13/europe/crimea-missile-att...

morkalork 3y ago
Yes, the implication being that there's been a second round of funny business by mr musk. I cannot comprehend how self-sabotaging this is. Ok, sure, starlink was going to have rural subscribers which is a lot of people but not as nearly a large market as urban telecom. And yeah, they'd have some customers in less developed countries that lack infrastructure. And sure, there's maritime shipping. But at the end of the day the real money maker, the one they could charge a premium to, was going to be the DoD. And he's pissing all over them.
- hollerith 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure the US DoD has its own network of satellites for communications and has had one before Starlink.
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    I don't know if anyone's ever had the scale of launches necessary for a system like Starlink though. As far as I know rocket launches are public even if what they're carrying is confidential.
  - oceanplexian 3y ago
    I’m sure they do, and it’s probably 45 years behind Starlink technologically. Starlink is the only game in town for low latency, high bandwidth satellite communications.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]