6 ms·

How is this legal? Can Starlink get in trouble from EU and the US?

nottorp 3y ago
I'm sure the precogs employed by Starlink can predict which terminals sold in other countries will be "illegally" moved to Russia and stop the transaction before it happens. So yes, it's all Starlink's fault. I'm also sure they can distinguish between terminals used by ukrainians and russians on a front line that probably changes daily. Again, it's their fault. Musk can be blamed for a lot of things, but for this, not really.
- weatherlight 3y ago
  Why doesn't Musk's Company just turn off the Starlink panels , you know operating in Russia, just like he did over Crimea?
  - potatototoo99 3y ago
    Why would he? Is the US at war with Russia?
    - dsr_ 3y ago
      Not yet.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Because sanctions issued by the country he lives and does business in apply, and his most lucrative client is that country’s government.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      US is currently imposing sanctions on Russia. And so if Musk were to be providing material support he could see Starlink placed on the export control list. Which if it happened would then open Musk up to severe criminal charges if he didn't take steps to prevent devices being used by Russia. So I suspect he might want to do the right thing ahead of time given the US government is a pretty important customer for SpaceX.
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      Russia is at (undeclared) war with US and NATO. Russian propaganda currently says that they started the war to counter NATO expansion.
      - itsoktocry 3y ago
        [flagged]
        sgift 3y ago
        Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version there's only two actors in the world, who can make decisions: Russia and NATO (or rather USA, for they argue NATO is basically the USA with another name). In the second version countries are free to decide who they associate with. There wasn't some empty space that NATO moved into. The countries who were there said "hey, NATO. Russia has been attacking and oppressing us for a long time and we fear they will do it again. We'd like to join." To answer your second question: Exactly what Russias neighbors feared is the reason. Russia is unhappy they couldn't oppress their neighbors anymore since 1990 and they want to do it again. They cannot really do it to the countries that already joined NATO, so they did it to the country that was late to the party.
        ImJamal 3y ago
        >Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version That is sort of a weird argument. Do you believe that is the case for the US as well? The US did not expand into Indian areas those areas just decided to join the US..
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
        Just to clarify: the "we" who would like to join is a government that was installed by the USA in a coup. What kind of "attacking and oppressing" happened before the coup?
  - nottorp 3y ago
    > Why doesn't Musk's Company just turn off the Starlink panels , you know operating in Russia, just like he did over Crimea? I'm also sure they can distinguish between terminals used by ukrainians and russians on a front line that probably changes daily.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Starlinks are associated with a user account. So it should be trivial to determine who is Ukrainian and who is not Ukrainian.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        How so when lots of them are paid for with foreign cards?
        garblegarble 3y ago
        Lots will be paid for by the DoD, for the others: ask the AFU - the users could supply their account details up through the chain of command (or directly via GIS Arta). Actually, I'd hope this is already happening regularly anyway so they can cut off any terminals captured by the enemy
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        That effort must come via Ukraine. Accusations and antagonism will lead to a more abrupt solution. Service termination for currently unverifiable equipment
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      Does StarLink NOC have the ability to listen in on conversations?
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        Yes and they know where you are
  - trickstra 3y ago
    That's exactly what they have been doing since the start of the invasion, and that's how they explained the cut-off when Ukraine was using the Sea Babies for the first time. So either something changed, or the article's claims are bogus. Starlink definitely has the exact location and ID of every ground terminal and can easily refuse the connection.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      Are you sure those weren't registered to the ukrainian army?
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    This equipment operates where Ukrainians operate theirs
- trickstra 3y ago
  > can predict which terminals sold in other countries will be "illegally" moved to Russia That's not how starlink works. At all.
swarnie 3y ago
If i manufacture a truck and sell it abroad, and eventually it ends up with a weapons mount in the Syrian desert, am i to blame?
- weatherlight 3y ago
  but he can remotely turn them off and has done so in the past..... so...
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    [flagged]
- RNAlfons 3y ago
  This is not a truck. If your truck would have an extension cord going back to your factory so it can run and running the truck would be sanctioned, you could be blamed if you don't cut the cord.
- willsmith72 3y ago
  it's not that simple export and re-export laws, especially from the US, are extremely complicated
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    This comment states the obvious, but it isn't adding anything. Must has expensive lawyers for this kind of stuff, but in the worst case (there is no legal route to stop Russia using starlink in this way) I would want to make it very clear that that was a problem and use my substantial voice to have something done about it.
    - willsmith72 3y ago
      exactly comment i replied to was acting like you would not be legally at fault in reality, it's way too complicated to say. at best it's ethically shady, at worst it's a mega fine and jail time
severino 3y ago
[flagged]
- codetrotter 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s what they meant. Starlink is a US company. The US have imposed some sanctions against Russia. Likewise EU have imposed sanctions against Russia too. So the question I think they are asking is if Starlink is in violation of any US or EU sanctions here.
seydor 3y ago
i don't think that calling the police in the middle of a war is very consequential

I'm sure the precogs employed by Starlink can predict which terminals sold in other countries will be "illegally" moved to Russia and stop the transaction before it happens. So yes, it's all Starlink's fault. I'm also sure they can distinguish between terminals used by ukrainians and russians on a front line that probably changes daily. Again, it's their fault. Musk can be blamed for a lot of things, but for this, not really.

weatherlight 3y ago
Why doesn't Musk's Company just turn off the Starlink panels , you know operating in Russia, just like he did over Crimea?
- potatototoo99 3y ago
  Why would he? Is the US at war with Russia?
  - dsr_ 3y ago
    Not yet.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Because sanctions issued by the country he lives and does business in apply, and his most lucrative client is that country’s government.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    US is currently imposing sanctions on Russia. And so if Musk were to be providing material support he could see Starlink placed on the export control list. Which if it happened would then open Musk up to severe criminal charges if he didn't take steps to prevent devices being used by Russia. So I suspect he might want to do the right thing ahead of time given the US government is a pretty important customer for SpaceX.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    Russia is at (undeclared) war with US and NATO. Russian propaganda currently says that they started the war to counter NATO expansion.
    - itsoktocry 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - sgift 3y ago
        Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version there's only two actors in the world, who can make decisions: Russia and NATO (or rather USA, for they argue NATO is basically the USA with another name). In the second version countries are free to decide who they associate with. There wasn't some empty space that NATO moved into. The countries who were there said "hey, NATO. Russia has been attacking and oppressing us for a long time and we fear they will do it again. We'd like to join." To answer your second question: Exactly what Russias neighbors feared is the reason. Russia is unhappy they couldn't oppress their neighbors anymore since 1990 and they want to do it again. They cannot really do it to the countries that already joined NATO, so they did it to the country that was late to the party.
        ImJamal 3y ago
        >Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version That is sort of a weird argument. Do you believe that is the case for the US as well? The US did not expand into Indian areas those areas just decided to join the US..
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
        Just to clarify: the "we" who would like to join is a government that was installed by the USA in a coup. What kind of "attacking and oppressing" happened before the coup?
- nottorp 3y ago
  > Why doesn't Musk's Company just turn off the Starlink panels , you know operating in Russia, just like he did over Crimea? I'm also sure they can distinguish between terminals used by ukrainians and russians on a front line that probably changes daily.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Starlinks are associated with a user account. So it should be trivial to determine who is Ukrainian and who is not Ukrainian.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      How so when lots of them are paid for with foreign cards?
      - garblegarble 3y ago
        Lots will be paid for by the DoD, for the others: ask the AFU - the users could supply their account details up through the chain of command (or directly via GIS Arta). Actually, I'd hope this is already happening regularly anyway so they can cut off any terminals captured by the enemy
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        That effort must come via Ukraine. Accusations and antagonism will lead to a more abrupt solution. Service termination for currently unverifiable equipment
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    Does StarLink NOC have the ability to listen in on conversations?
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      Yes and they know where you are
- trickstra 3y ago
  That's exactly what they have been doing since the start of the invasion, and that's how they explained the cut-off when Ukraine was using the Sea Babies for the first time. So either something changed, or the article's claims are bogus. Starlink definitely has the exact location and ID of every ground terminal and can easily refuse the connection.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Are you sure those weren't registered to the ukrainian army?
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  This equipment operates where Ukrainians operate theirs
trickstra 3y ago
> can predict which terminals sold in other countries will be "illegally" moved to Russia That's not how starlink works. At all.

swarnie 3y ago

If i manufacture a truck and sell it abroad, and eventually it ends up with a weapons mount in the Syrian desert, am i to blame?

weatherlight 3y ago
but he can remotely turn them off and has done so in the past..... so...
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  [flagged]
RNAlfons 3y ago
This is not a truck. If your truck would have an extension cord going back to your factory so it can run and running the truck would be sanctioned, you could be blamed if you don't cut the cord.
willsmith72 3y ago
it's not that simple export and re-export laws, especially from the US, are extremely complicated
- bigfudge 3y ago
  This comment states the obvious, but it isn't adding anything. Must has expensive lawyers for this kind of stuff, but in the worst case (there is no legal route to stop Russia using starlink in this way) I would want to make it very clear that that was a problem and use my substantial voice to have something done about it.
  - willsmith72 3y ago
    exactly comment i replied to was acting like you would not be legally at fault in reality, it's way too complicated to say. at best it's ethically shady, at worst it's a mega fine and jail time

severino 3y ago

[flagged]

codetrotter 3y ago
I don’t think that’s what they meant. Starlink is a US company. The US have imposed some sanctions against Russia. Likewise EU have imposed sanctions against Russia too. So the question I think they are asking is if Starlink is in violation of any US or EU sanctions here.

seydor 3y ago

i don't think that calling the police in the middle of a war is very consequential