this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024

461 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

57435 readers

4099 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

461

Russia’s Starlink use sparks probe into SpaceX compliance with US sanctions (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Democratic lawmakers are probing SpaceX over Russia's reported use of Starlink in Ukraine, saying that recent developments raise questions about SpaceX's "compliance with US sanctions and export controls."

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk last month denied what he called "false news reports [that] claim that SpaceX is selling Starlink terminals to Russia," saying that, "to the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia." But Musk's statement didn't satisfy US Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who sent a letter to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell yesterday.

"Starlink is an invaluable resource for Ukrainians in their fight against Russia's brutal and illegitimate invasion. It is alarming that Russia may be obtaining and using your technology to coordinate attacks against Ukrainian troops in illegally occupied regions in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, potentially in violation of US sanctions and export controls," Raskin and Garcia wrote.

Musk has also stated that "Starlink satellites will not close the link in Russia." However, the concerns raised by Rankin and Garcia are about whether Russia used the broadband service in Ukraine. Their letter said that Ukraine last month "released intercepted audio communications between Russian soldiers that indicated Russian forces had illegally deployed and activated Starlink terminals in certain Russian-occupied areas in Eastern Ukraine."

all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 110 points 5 months ago (4 children)

How does the DOD find it acceptable that a corporation is actively profiting from providing infrastructure to the enemy.

Probably because they are not officially the enemy. Hopefully sanctions will be amended to fix this.

[–] [email protected] 85 points 5 months ago (1 children)

After explicitly denying the service to an ally.

[+] [email protected] -56 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Did Elon Musk Turn Off Starlink Access in Crimea To Disrupt Ukrainian Attack?

Tl;dr: No.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 5 months ago (1 children)

More accurate TLDR of the article: He did explicitly deny it to an ally. Ukraine asked for it to be activated in Crimea and he said no.

Whether he should have or not is up to interpretation. He claimed that US sanctions didn't allow it, but another time said he was preventing war. Why he gets to decide at all is ???.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

TL Actually read it, Yes.

I didn't say he deactivated it.

I said he specifically declined to activate it for Ukraine when requested.

He makes no such qualms about Russia using his service.

[+] [email protected] -33 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The question in the title is: "Did Elon Musk Turn Off Starlink Access in Crimea To Disrupt Ukrainian Attack?"

The answer is no.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Why the fuck are you carrying water for a racist sociopath?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Shit birds of a shit feather...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you're gonna hate someone, hate them for what they actually did, not for what their detractors want you to think they did.

Modern news media is fucking awash with cleverly worded half truths that are repeated so often, by so many who don't take a moment for critical thought, that they become almost a rallying cry. It's Hunter's Laptop all over again, but aimed at the left.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, the muskrat really is a piece of shit.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why tf did you post that article if not to refute the assertion that he denied service? It doesn't matter what the title of the article you posted is if it's a total non-sequitur.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

It's a bit of a non-sequitur though, the context was denying service to an ally not cutting off existing service to Crimea. It's like if someone asked "Have you ever shaken a baby" and you respond "I have never kicked this baby!". Sure, it's good that you haven't kicked a baby, but that's just not the question.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In a shocking twist, it turns out the DOD is owned by the corporations.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

3 defense contractors in a trenchcoat.

[+] [email protected] -39 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Who is profiting from this exactly? I don't undestand why people keep spreading this disinformation when not a single single article, including the one above, makes no accusations of SpaceX being complicit in it in anyway. The only thing they're being criticized for, or rather questioned about is wether they're doing enough to track the terminals near the front lines and making sure they're not being used by sanctioned parties.

If you actually read the article you'd know that selling Starlink to Russia already is against the sanctions. It does not work in Russia or in the occupied territories. This is why the drone assault on the Crimea failed aswell. Not because Musk disabled Starlink but because it wasn't enabled in the first place.

[+] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[+] [email protected] -13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Is this a rational discussion about what may be actually happening here in reality, or is this a circlejerk where everybody just repeats what we already know, which is that Elon sucks as a person? Let's not become Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If you actually read what I said rather than what he responded and actually read the link he posted, you'll see that I didn't say he deactivated anything, I said he denied the service for an ally.

Elon explicitly denied to activate starlink in locations requested by Ukraine with a bullshit excuse that that would support war, while now making no qualms of Russia using the service for war.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Starlink. They sell more groundstations.
So your argument is that it can't be because it is turned off for specific regions.

we cannot check if it might be available for Russian forces in these regions.
the Russians use it so it must help them.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Starlink works near the front lines because otherwise Ukraine would not be able to use it either. However the front lines are constantly changing and you can't expect anyone to be able to accurately track them at the resolution that would be required for SpaceX to make sure it immediately stops working once you move to the occupied side.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh no?! Requiring a multi billion dollar company that literally does rocket science, to actually take measures to not have the Russian military use their infra while invading another country. What a bizarre idea, no way this will be possible for these poor corporations.

Maybe stop acting as if a poor company needs protecting. Most large corporations need a firm boot up their ass. Companies owned and operated under space karen need two!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You do not have a clue about the efforts SpaceX is putting into trying to stop this from happening.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

So? We can see the effects and conclude.. not enough.

It is hilarious I'm getting downvoted for stating a multi-billion dollar company should assure a dictatorial regime should not be able to use their infra to commit warcrimes and invade another country.

Space Karen is a douche nozzle. He actively wants to remove worker protections to be able to exploit workers more, questions the need for NATO.. worshipping the billionaire class is not going to help anyone except the billionaires.

[+] [email protected] -14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You are swimming upstream on this one. People know what they were told by biased headlines on Reddit last summer and they don't want to hear anything else.

What's happening right now with Russian forces using Starlink is precisely why SL had the service disabled in the occupied territories and near the front lines in the first place!

[+] [email protected] -10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Only dead fish swim with the current.

It's a tough pill to swallow, I give you that. For many people the entire "Elon Musk is Russian asset" narrative is build on this specific event and then any further findings that seem to support this are added on top of it. If a person believing in this narrative would then aknowledge that they were wrong about this one it removes the entire foundation from said belief and it all comes crashing down. It's no wonder that it causes major cognitive dissonance on people and they then do all kinds of mental gymnastics to hold on to their false beliefs.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Musk is an immature asshole with a Billionaire lifestyle. He was still everybody's darling, even while playing an IRL Tony Stark, right up until he started working against the agenda of the TOOLs. (Terminally Online and Outraged Leftists).

I'm neither Republican nor Conservative but dealing with the TOOLs that are clogging up every single Online space is exhausting.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 months ago

Nationalize SpaceX for national security.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago

Take over the NOC and see what's going on, and start charging people with insurrection. They can GPS restrict every damn dish if they want to, there's no excuse for this. They won't let me move my dish half a mile without shutting it down, why is there a question here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

It is alarming that Russia may be obtaining and using your technology to coordinate attacks against Ukrainian troops in illegally occupied regions in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, potentially in violation of US sanctions and export controls," Raskin and Garcia wrote.

Rankin and Garcia say that "Ukrainian intelligence officials assert that Russian forces have obtained Starlink terminals illegally through third-party actors via neighboring countries."

However, according to Ukraine, the misuse of Starlink terminals is "systemic," raising additional questions about the efficacy of your company's safeguards and compliance with US sanctions and export controls.

A March 2023 notice issued by those three US government agencies said that companies' "compliance programs should include controls tailored to the risks the business faces, such as diversion by third-party intermediaries."

The letter asked what SpaceX has done "to eliminate existing or potential security vulnerabilities that actors, such as Russia, may exploit to illicitly acquire, trade or use Starlink terminals, including in Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine."

The lawmakers also asked for details on how SpaceX and its subsidiaries "work with the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and/or the Treasury to prevent illicit acquisition, trade, or use of satellite terminals, including in Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine."

The original article contains 801 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!