In a statement on Thursday, the congressmen wrote, “Russia’s use of Starlink satellite terminals would be in contravention of U.S. export controls that prohibit Russia from acquiring and utilizing U.S.-produced technology.”
So the equipment has to fall into the wrong hands, through a somehow compromised supply chain. Maybe that could happen without starlink knowing, but they really should have figured that out in march. They should have very easily identified the units that were potentially compromised by auditing shipping logs.
Not only did the supply chain have to be compromised, but also the subscription and payments system… How did they not catch it on the subscription payment side? Now in addition to a compromised supply chain, a financial institution was compromised? At the least, they didn’t do their due dilligance in customer verification.
How could russia have set up the equipment without some level of development and testing? Geolocation should have given that development away.
Now, could spaceX do something more about this ? Most likely. But that is resources you need to put on this, which is not profitable.
Yeah good point, that’s called “negligence”. Not doing due dilligance or taking the necessary steps to avoid breaking the law, because it isn’t profitable, isn’t a valid legal defense.
It really would have been as simple as geofencing against devices that weren’t preauthorized or whitelisted.
I’m curious on how you envision they identify these units? If they don’t activate until they are near the Ukrainian border, how do they know what is Russian controlled vs Ukrainian controlled?
As for the payment side, YouTube can’t even get a proper handle on users getting region pricing at a fraction of the cost, by simply using a VPN, and they have skin in the game for preventing cross region abuse. Starlink has no reason outside sanctions to give a fuck where their payments are coming from, and you’re talking about state actors that can literally provide a real bank and address owned by a shell individual that passes any check you can think of beyond highly invasive levels no one would accept.
Geolocation is extremely unreliable. Let’s look at one aspect, GPS: In North America you don’t normally deal with it beyond being in between buildings or under a tunnel, but the moment you’re flying in airspace near Russia, GPS can and has literally shown the location being thousands of miles away.
I get the musk hate, but you’re acting like a grandma down the road is illegally using it, and ignoring the fact that it’s a country known to have operatives worldwide, multiple hacking groups, and resources you likely can’t even imagine.
Are you saying that geolocation of a starlink unit is difficult from the starlink satellite network? That seems unlikely to me.
Starlink has no reason outside sanctions to give a fuck where their payments are coming from
Do you see a moral dimension to this? Keeping technology out of the hands of an aggressor state is an excellent reason. I think that many people feel that because corporate entities behave like criminal organizations (indifferent to anything other than maximizing their own profits) that this is somehow OK. It isn’t, and normalizing isn’t acceptable either.
Are you saying that geolocation of a starlink unit is difficult from the starlink satellite network?
In 99% of cases? No. In the case of a state actor intentionally wanting to obsfucate the location? Absolutely.
Do you see a moral dimension to this?
You’re either missing the point or ignoring it. If you bothered to read around that sentence, you’d realize that in context it has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with other companies with a financial incentive failing to do it. If a company loses out on 75+% of their profit when I pay for YouTube out of India, and fail to stop me despite active efforts, how do you expect a company to manage it against a state actor.
Geolocation is very different when you use an omnidirectional antenna passively listening to multiple signals rather than a directional antenna connecting to a satellite for a bidirectional communication session. And all of this ignores the simple fact there are sanctions against some countries and a war going on in another. They are the seller of their antennas and could easily limit who is allowed to change the region of their antenna to work in the white-list zone. Starlink knows the exact equipment I bought from them, and they will know if I move it, and if I change ownership to another person (who actually uses it). Yes, none of this can happen without some administrative or programming work, but that’s the case for many companies if they don’t want to break the law.
You are all talking about “happy path” situations. Yeah, if the people involved are honest you’re absolutely right.
I’m talking about when a government funded effort, with agents in all reaches of the world, make a concerted effort to get their hands on tech, and trick that tech into working for them.
Look at this article from March 2024: https://robertgarcia.house.gov/media/in-the-news/cnbc-house-democrats-probe-spacex-over-alleged-illegal-export-and-use-starlink
So the equipment has to fall into the wrong hands, through a somehow compromised supply chain. Maybe that could happen without starlink knowing, but they really should have figured that out in march. They should have very easily identified the units that were potentially compromised by auditing shipping logs.
Not only did the supply chain have to be compromised, but also the subscription and payments system… How did they not catch it on the subscription payment side? Now in addition to a compromised supply chain, a financial institution was compromised? At the least, they didn’t do their due dilligance in customer verification.
How could russia have set up the equipment without some level of development and testing? Geolocation should have given that development away.
Yeah good point, that’s called “negligence”. Not doing due dilligance or taking the necessary steps to avoid breaking the law, because it isn’t profitable, isn’t a valid legal defense.
It really would have been as simple as geofencing against devices that weren’t preauthorized or whitelisted.
I’m curious on how you envision they identify these units? If they don’t activate until they are near the Ukrainian border, how do they know what is Russian controlled vs Ukrainian controlled?
As for the payment side, YouTube can’t even get a proper handle on users getting region pricing at a fraction of the cost, by simply using a VPN, and they have skin in the game for preventing cross region abuse. Starlink has no reason outside sanctions to give a fuck where their payments are coming from, and you’re talking about state actors that can literally provide a real bank and address owned by a shell individual that passes any check you can think of beyond highly invasive levels no one would accept.
Geolocation is extremely unreliable. Let’s look at one aspect, GPS: In North America you don’t normally deal with it beyond being in between buildings or under a tunnel, but the moment you’re flying in airspace near Russia, GPS can and has literally shown the location being thousands of miles away.
I get the musk hate, but you’re acting like a grandma down the road is illegally using it, and ignoring the fact that it’s a country known to have operatives worldwide, multiple hacking groups, and resources you likely can’t even imagine.
Are you saying that geolocation of a starlink unit is difficult from the starlink satellite network? That seems unlikely to me.
Do you see a moral dimension to this? Keeping technology out of the hands of an aggressor state is an excellent reason. I think that many people feel that because corporate entities behave like criminal organizations (indifferent to anything other than maximizing their own profits) that this is somehow OK. It isn’t, and normalizing isn’t acceptable either.
In 99% of cases? No. In the case of a state actor intentionally wanting to obsfucate the location? Absolutely.
You’re either missing the point or ignoring it. If you bothered to read around that sentence, you’d realize that in context it has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with other companies with a financial incentive failing to do it. If a company loses out on 75+% of their profit when I pay for YouTube out of India, and fail to stop me despite active efforts, how do you expect a company to manage it against a state actor.
Its quite simple really: if you want profits then you should get it honestly. Otherwise you don’t deserve the profits.
This explains nothing. Russia infiltrates governments and your answer is “yeah, well starlink should just be honest.”
Geolocation is very different when you use an omnidirectional antenna passively listening to multiple signals rather than a directional antenna connecting to a satellite for a bidirectional communication session. And all of this ignores the simple fact there are sanctions against some countries and a war going on in another. They are the seller of their antennas and could easily limit who is allowed to change the region of their antenna to work in the white-list zone. Starlink knows the exact equipment I bought from them, and they will know if I move it, and if I change ownership to another person (who actually uses it). Yes, none of this can happen without some administrative or programming work, but that’s the case for many companies if they don’t want to break the law.
You are all talking about “happy path” situations. Yeah, if the people involved are honest you’re absolutely right.
I’m talking about when a government funded effort, with agents in all reaches of the world, make a concerted effort to get their hands on tech, and trick that tech into working for them.