YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Starlink never allowed use for offensive drone attacks, Starshield is what they were using, and it is a product fully controlled by the USG.

Before the Model 3 was announced, a curious user poked around his car's network, and found multiple references to it, which he leaked to a news site.

Tesla responded by remotely forcibly downgrading his vehicle's firmware to an older version with no references to the 3 (presumably so he couldn't make any further discoveries), blacklisting his vehicle from getting any firmware upgrades, and to make sure he didn't try to thwart that, disabling the ethernet interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield#Launches

Because foreign corporations operating in the Balkans pay taxes in the balkans, own property/real estate on Balkan soil on which their business operates, and employ workers in the balkans.

An individual will be informed how not having a lock on the door was a failure in individual responsibility to prevent harm against yourself/others.

But an operator of digital infrastructure might get audited for compliance of the critical infrastructure directive/act. In the EU fines for such violations can be as high as €10 million or 2% of global turnover.

When those people aren’t around Bulgaria is incredibly peaceful country.

You install gates, raise walls, limit access, hire personnel, etc.

The more you need to secure whatever it is, the more layers you have.

In general, any respectable warehouse would have an external wall with a single entrance to the parking, and then a second entrance to the building itself.

Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?

Sounds like socialism.

Well, the official stance of the EU a couple of years ago, when the Nordstream pipeline was attacked, was that it was Russia (even though it was against its interests). So we can have something similar here, right? That it was Ukraine that sunk those vessels. I understand the Bulgarian PM, he's just trying to be a regular EU politician.

Corporations have more duties of different scale than individuals.

Starlink is a provider of Digital Infrastructure, and is already classified as "Essential Entity" under the EU CER-directive.

As such, it needs to comply with so-called "Physical-Cyber Convergence Requirements", which entails

1. Perimeter and Access Defense

2. All-Hazards Mitigation: Designing infrastructure to resist natural disasters, severe climate changes, or physical sabotage/terrorism.

3. Vetted Personnel: Utilizing mandatory background checks and security clearances for operators working in sensitive zones

Not much is known about this incident at this stage, and I'm sure the government will conduct own investigations. But regardless of the outcome, it will be the duty of Starlink to secure its facilities.

Does any modern body of law consider corporations citizens? They’re national persons. But that’s a separate concept.

Agree, the government should step in and (finally!!) take actions against those foreign adversaries.

But this doesn't change the fact that it is not the governments role to protect the facilities of a infrastructure provider against sabotage (or even acts of terror), a company providing such services in the EU has to comply to the CER directive and secure its operations.

There is a very basic reason for that: I could undercut every provider on the market by not investing in security and resilience. while everything works well I will beat all my established competitors and gain a significant share of the market.

This creates a risk of critical infrastructure stability for the citizens of that country. So if inevitable issues in resilience arise.....I demand the government to step in and take over my operations...?

Yep, the EU classifies this as "critical infrastructure". Operators of such services (including water, electricity and digital infrastructure) have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes

I agree that the government should step up on against the military adversary on a country/regional level, but even then it is not their job to step in and do the job of Starlink as a provider of critical digital infrastructure.

A player in these markets has an obligation to secure his own facilities, otherwise every new market-entrant can undercut all competitors by not investing in security at all, until it's big enough to become a national risk and the government steps in to secure its business.

As a provider for digital infrastructure, Starlink is required to comply with the EU Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive, which mandates strict physical and digital security as well as business continuity in case of crisis.

The nature of this incident indicates a security issue on the site of Starlink, which is their duty, not the governments.

They may have not been in compliance with this directive, which puts local infrastructure and citizens and risk.

It's the government's job to protect against crime, but the duty of an individual to take proactive measures against becoming a victim of crime ("Individual Responsibility").

--> They won't put a policeman in front of my house just because I decided to not have a door on my house.

-

Equally, (and MUCH more explicitly), it's the legal duty of corporations to protect themsselves against crime, especially if they provide critical infrastructure.

--> They won't put police all over my facilities just because I didn't invest in access-control.

--> In this case, I am not in compliance with the law and considered to invite(!) crime

Operators of such services have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes. This is the duty of every player in this business.

The government has a job to stand up against a potential adversary of the country (be it other countries or local terrorists), and in case of an attack on critical infrastructure the government will also step in to protect it, I agree on that.

But it doesn't have the job to take over Starlink's (or whoever's) business operations and make it secure. That is the job of the company, long before it even appears on any map of a potential adversary...

It's not the responsibility of security agencies to prevent two guys from entering the premises of a critical infrastructure provider with gasoline.

They may have prior intelligence to act on this, but it is the operator of that facility who has the responsibility to ensure a certain level of security and resilience of his own premises, and this is strictly defined.

-

> "Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense?"

No, this would turn a civilian into a combatant ship, causing it to lose the civilian protections of the UN (The Ocean is governed by conventions of the United Nations, it's a different jurisdiction)

And still, oil tankers and cargo ships have requirements to secure themselves against piracy, terrorism and even warfare, mandated by the international maritime organization.

>trying to drag NATO into all-out war.

By sabotaging a few antennas? "Dragging NATO into an all-out war" is no easy task, if even possible at this point. Just ask the Russians. They have attacked German airports with drones, and barely elicited an upgrade from moderate to strong concern.

Once it does go live, anyone could see the lower ping between two users of this network. If they say it got enabled, that wouldn't be hard to independently verify

[0]https://www.trackstarlink.com/guides/starlink-laser-links-ex... [1]https://starlink.com/technology

Also, most of NATO's existing resources are currently not doing much but standing around. You can question how useful NATO's 'pre-drone' material is, and how much hasn't already been sent to Ukraine, but it's not nothing.

Lavrov has indicated he knows Russia would lose a conventional war against Europe by saying that an attack by Europe would start a quick (i.e. nuclear) war.

I agree that the US would stay out, especially if it is nuclear.

Last I checked, >1.2bn € per month, countries leading: Hungary, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Spain.

In a war with Russia, I imagine parties aligned with European strength would fare better. Parties which have previously suggested using kid gloves with Russia will fare worse. I think this implies that some right and left wing parties will not do well.

If it's about you, it is "our history".