8 ms·
The nominal group in power should be able to deny/allow communication from the space above their country though.
by ralfd 1y ago
The nominal group in power should be able to deny/allow communication from the space above their country though.
- perihelions 1y agoBut the US (who has jurisdiction over Starlink) isn't bound by Mynamar laws, and (IMHO) shouldn't give the time of day to the requests of a junta commiting crimes against humanity, systemic extermination[0] of ethnic minorities. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
- buran77 1y ago> But the US (who has jurisdiction over Starlink) isn't bound by Mynamar laws, and (IMHO) shouldn't... Should everyone else be allowed to do anything they want in a country as long as it's from a distance because "your laws don't apply to me"? Is it fine when Russian, Chinese, or NK hackers are operating against the US? If a country is good enough to sell to and provide a service there, it's good enough to obey its laws.
- IshKebab 1y agoStarlink isn't sold to Myanmar.
- simiones 1y agoSold in, not sold to. The GP meant: if you consider it legitimate to sell your product in Myanmar, you should obey the laws of Myanmar. If you consider the government is illegitimate, don't do business there.
- perihelions 1y agoWhat if a "legitimate" government is committing genocide, as Mynamar's is? Should international companies respect its sovereign laws? This thread baffles me, that people are somehow capable of ignoring the elephant in the room of the massacring of civilians, to tunnel-vision instead on some trivial and insignificant technicalities about satellite law.
- logicchains 1y agoBecause a good chunk of people on this site have so little moral development that to them "whatever the law says is moral".
- buran77 1y ago> What if a "legitimate" government is committing genocide That's an interesting question, I'll say. I can't say yes or no but I can say that the answer should be consistent. You either support genocidal regimes, or you don't. So you have Starlink operating in Israel and in Myanmar. > that people are somehow capable of ignoring the elephant in the room of the massacring of civilians, to tunnel-vision instead on some trivial and insignificant technicalities about satellite law. Imagine the bafflement when some people stick to their tunnel vision while writing about other people's tunnel vision on the same exact topic.
- andsoitis 1y ago> What if a "legitimate" government is committing genocide, as Mynamar's is? Should international companies respect its sovereign laws? Yes. The answer is not to act lawlessly, but instead to not be in that country at all or be there and apply pressure for change. But breaking the laws in ad hoc ways is not the way. Several international companies have divested or exited due to political risk, sanctions, or human rights concerns. > people are somehow capable of ignoring the elephant in the room of the massacring of civilians To consider, the following countries, amongst others, retain embassies in Myanmar: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Nepal, Singapore, UK, USA. Should embassy staff break the country's laws?
- watwut 1y ago> The answer is not to act lawlessly, but instead to not be in that country at all or be there and apply pressure for change. Oh, that is the novel idea. For people being genocided to not be there and for those who are against genocide to let themselves be killed in the first step. > But breaking the laws in ad hoc ways is not the way. Breaking the laws is frequently necessary in the genocide situation, because the laws were designed to create and facilitate the genocide. Genocides do not just happen out of nothing.
- IshKebab 1y agoStarlink isn't sold in Myanmar either. SpaceX does not do business in Myanmar.
- buran77 1y agoStarlink has the precise terminal location and gets paid for the subscription for that terminal. They know where it is and who pays for it. From the article they say that they were selling a service there and stopped in order to comply with local laws: > SpaceX proactively identified and disabled over 2,500 Starlink Kits in the vicinity of suspected ‘scam centers.'”
- burnerthrow008 1y agoI think the point (which you seem to have missed) is: How do you distinguish between a terminal under the control of a scam center versus, say, a journalist who has traveled to the vicinity of the call center to interview people and make a report (The Economist recently had an excellent series of articles about these call centers). Neither terminal was bought in Myanmar. Both have been transported to and used in the vicinity of the scam center. The difference is purely the intent of the person controlling the terminal. But you can't infer that intent from only the location where it was purchased and the precise location where it is being used. > > SpaceX proactively identified and disabled over 2,500 Starlink Kits in the vicinity of suspected ‘scam centers.'” Sure, because it's currently in the news and it's any easy way to say "we fixed the problem". Maybe some Economist journalist just lost internet access. Oh well. Guess they'll have to find their way out of Myanmar without internet. Sucks to be them, right?
- close04 1y ago> How do you distinguish between a terminal under the control of a scam center versus, say, a journalist who has traveled to the vicinity of the call center to interview people and make a report. You are told by the local law enforcement and legal system? Starlink's obligation is only to assist local authorities as per their law. Maybe the local authorities are corrupt but that doesn't give Starlink a free pass from obeying their law. > Neither terminal was bought in Myanmar. Does it matter? Starlink does business there, in Myanmar. They offer an internet service. They were asked by the authorities to disable some terminals, and because they want to keep offering the service to other paying customers, they complied. There's no legal grey area here, not even a moral conundrum for Musk. He follows the law of the land, gets to still do business and make more money. Point being, as long as Starlink wants to keep offering a service and make money in Myanmar the company has to obey local laws. The statement below [0] that started the thread was a kneejerk reaction, keyboard warrior style. Musk "didn't give the time of day" to Brazilian authorities and he was squeezed into compliance. Why fight when there's an easy way to keep making money? > But the US (who has jurisdiction over Starlink) isn't bound by Mynamar laws, and (IMHO) shouldn't give the time of day to the requests of a junta [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45680818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45680818
- IlikeKitties 1y ago> Should everyone else be allowed to do anything they want in a country as long as it's from a distance because "your laws don't apply to me"? Is it fine when Russian, Chinese, or NK hackers are operating against the US? Yes absolutely, see the ridiculous censorship the British government is trying to establish against us companies. Companies should be forced to comply with local law when they have a physical office there or there is a government to government contract that regulates how commerce should be done between those countries. Now, Myanmar or the british or whoever can block, deny payment services or make it illegal to use such services for their locals but it is ludicrous to accept the laws of foreign countries just because.
- close04 1y ago> Companies should be forced to comply with local law when they have a physical office there What happens when they send signals in that country, like Starlink is explicitly doing? What if companies in Mexico or Canada started blasting signals on frequencies used in the US for critical communication, would that fall under "they should comply with US law"? What if Russia does the same with boats on the border?
- IlikeKitties 1y agoFirst, consider separating state actors from companies. Countries actively sabotaging critical infrastructure is an act of war like russia is doing with GPS Signals. It's not a matter of legal or illegal but a matter of are you willing and able to either sanction or bomb the country into changing their behavior. As for what companies are doing: If i'm legally allowed to send a signal inside mexico that interferes with US Signals, sucks to be an US Person relying on that signal but me as a company wouldn't give a shit. Doubly so for space based assets. This is where inter country contracts come into play. If your country and my country have a contract that designates some signals for public use and others not, than local law can be changed to comply with those contracts. Everything else is just a matter of tragedy of the commons or questionable encroachments into another countries sovereignity.
- 1y ago
- Ray20 1y ago> because "your laws don't apply to me"? That's exactly how it works, via ability to apply laws. If there is no abiliyt to apply the law, then yeah, everyone allowed to do anything they want.
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoAllowed, no, but there's also no direct consequences. Indirect consequences though, like counterattacks, sanctions, export restrictions, etc are a thing. But a country like NK doesn't care about relationships with the US or Europe, since they benefit more from their relationship with China and Russia, their close neighbours (physically and culturally). Anyway, it's like free speech, I can say anything I want on the internet because what are you going to do, huh? But it'll also mean that if I were to contact you for a job later on you'd be like "nu uh you insulted my mother". Plus I'd get banned from HN.
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoIt's not fine I think, and I'm honestly surprised that years of continued cyberattacks haven't led to an escalation outside of the internet yet. Can't be economic sanctions because the US already doesn't deal with NK for example. I am not aware of the victims of state sponsored cyberattacks doing any cyber-counter-attacks either, but that's likely down to a lack of reporting. That is, cyberattacks are seen as a victimless or economic only thing, not unlike economic sanctions.
- kube-system 1y agoStarlink's base stations follow the laws of every country they are on the ground in.
- jacknews 1y agoI think you'll find this is not 'at the request' of any government but part of a much wider policy being implemented. Eg, Cambodia just had $15B in crypto confiscated (ostensibly illegal proceeds of the 'Prince' group, but IMHO they are just a front for the state), and is facing a financial blacklisting. China were pressuring the area to crack down on this stuff early this year, but it's quite possible the trigger for the west to get more involved was the Cambodia/Thai conflict, which was a simple personal feud over this business, provoked by the Cambodian leader, but which risked spreading into a much wider conflict.
- elif 1y agoReally? Even Darth vader? Who defines "should"?
- alt227 1y ago> Who defines "should"? The group in power of the country
- maxerickson 1y agoNo, it's the group in power in outer space.
- alt227 1y agoI agree with the parent comment, each country should control the communications in its own airspace. Surely this is how it works? Starlink cant just start selling internet in countries it has no jurisdiction or communications license in?
- IAmBroom 1y agoWhy not? Isn't the entire point of the internet to make access to communication of information equal? We're playing around with the word "should" here, but from a moral standpoint, I disagree with any opinion that a sovereign power should(morally) be able to control communication at all - short of immediate threats to public safety (yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater).
- alt227 1y agoTheres a difference between people in different countries talking freely, and people selling internet connections to residents in another country where they have no company registration.
- maxerickson 1y agoControl vs want. If you don't have power in outer space, you simply don't control what happens. You can hope that whoever has power respects your desires.
- elzbardico 1y agoThey can. They can have laws and try to enforce them. International Law and Companies should not be in the business of doing jackbooted thugs work for them. The same apply for other stuff like chat cryptography. No, we shouldn't fuck everyone's right to privacy because your fat policemen are unable to conduct an investigation on meatspace and prefer to just have a digital panopticon. obs: I upvoted you because while I consider your position absolutely abhorrent, I believe you're entitled to it and we should not downvote comments just because we don't agree with them.
- croes 1y agoWould SpaceX comply if it was an order from a Brazilian court?
- ferbivore 1y agoYou think resistance movements should never have telecommunications access?
- sbarre 1y agoYou think the issue is that black and white?
- swarnie 1y agoThat's not what OP is saying. An entity truly in control should be able to deny access to insurrectionists because of you know, being in control.
- jacquesm 1y agoClearly, they are not in control of SpaceX.
- miroljub 1y agoYes they are, if they are able to force SpaceX to do as they want.
- IAmBroom 1y agoThey are in control of the military, and presumably the capital city area and a majority of the country's resources. That says nothing about their power to control the satellites overhead.
- bilbo0s 1y agoI think the commenter only meant that there is such a thing as RF engineering. But that to be effective, RF engineering would require the local authorities to have some level of control over the region they want to shut down. Thus, the authorities must not have that control. I agree with the commenter from a technical perspective. It's extremely easy to cut off SpaceX terminals in some area if you control that area. I just don't think that's relevant. It's not the local authorities the rest of the world is lining up behind, it's the regional players around Myanmar. The regional players can countenance the local authorities only slightly more than the warlords and gang leaders. What the local authorities want is almost completely irrelevant to the regional players.
- vintermann 1y agoWhy?
- itchyjunk 1y agoLaw of the land. Must follow it to operate in that jurisdiction
- Ray20 1y agoOr what? We're not talking about Russia or China. They don't have the capability to destroy satellite constellations.
- ta1243 1y agoMight makes right? That kind of arrogance is what leads to 9/11, the most successful destruction of a western country since ww2.
- Ray20 1y agoDidn't this happen because of the abandonment of this principle? 9/11 would not have happened if there were no radical Muslims in the world, and US had the Might to make such world.
- gpm 1y agoThe US had the might to make such a world as demonstrated by... their loss to the Taliban in Afghanistan? Killing an individual is easy. Killing an ideology next to impossible, and trying tends to make the proponents more violently against you.
- hollerith 1y ago>US had the Might to make such world. It is clear to me that the US never had the capacity to do that.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
- vessenes 1y agoHard no. Communications is a human right. I’d say routing communications as a private company is a privilege that can be extended or denied, but this perspective is poison IMO.
- jayd16 1y agoIt's wild to me how many of these comments are appealing to local law without any thought to what is just. If the local law was to deny all women or some ethnic group access to communication, the world should do it without question?
- Workaccount2 1y ago>If the local law was to deny all women Palestine gets widespread support
- jonah 1y agoIn that case, they're probably the lesser of two evils. Women can't campaign for more rights if they're dead...
- evilkorn 1y agoThat is sort of the way I see it. It's a leap to ask for gay or women's rights before the county has the right to not be bombed.
- foxglacier 1y agoIt's a leap even without being bombed. Asking for gay or women's rights is asking for reform or elimination of Islam. Leftists never seem to want that, I think because they see Muslims as an oppressed group that should be supported, not have their identity taken away from them.
- arczyx 1y agoDo you have an objective source about what law in Palestine denying access to all women?
- Rover222 1y agoQueers for Palestine is so hard to wrap my head around.
- infthi 1y agoThe precedent seems to be that anyone can broadcast anything without caring what territories can receive your broadcast (see Voice of America broadcasts during the Cold War or GPS jamming in the Baltic nowadays). This seems to be extendable to broadcasting from space. The nominal group in power may ban/jam _receiving_ equipment on their territory though.
- fnfs2000 1y agoUS law prohibits Starlink from transmitting into countries that don't permit it, with exceptions as directed by the US Government. If this was not the case, Starlink would have made its product available globally instead of having to seek permission from every country they want to service (called "landing rights")
- nradov 1y agoThere is no single group which has power over all of Myanmar. It is a failed state.
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoDepends if your country claims to be free or not, or what your own morals and values are - if you believe in "might makes right", then sure, the ones in power get to suppress freedom of information to the rest of the country. If you believe in a free democracy, then information and communication should be free (think freedom of speech, press, information, etc).
- yieldcrv 1y agoThe cool thing about multi national corporations is that you're more powerful than nation states in your respective domain, a demigod
- sidibe 1y agoThe nominal group in power in Myanmar depends on where you are standing and changes with time. The official government has no authority in most of the country.