Hacker News Reader

Comment by alt227 | Hacker News Reader

> Who defines "should"?

The group in power of the country

No, it's the group in power in outer space.

9/11 was perpetrated by people who couldn't have knocked out Starlink or anything else in space but still found a way to harm their enemies. Simply not being a superpower doesn't make one entirely harmless. Starlink has assets, soft and hard, all over the globe, in easy to destroy places. No one even needs to claim responsibility for the damage. It just needs to be understood that it was the result of ignoring the threat of retaliation by those being imposed upon. Whether or not that imposition is moral in a particular set of eyes doesn't change the reality of what happens when those imposed upon decide to lash out.

I 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?

If the country can't control it, what power do they have? GPS and sattelite TV can also be received anywhere, as long as you can somehow get a receiver for it there's little that can be done about it except maybe jamming. (I don't actually know if systems like GPS can be turned off on a per country basis)

That said, Starlink can be turned off on a per country basis, so the government can ask (or demand) that to be done. If they refuse, there may be consequences that can be escalated to a political level.

For GPS, jamming does happen: https://gpsjam.org/

Control 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.

Why 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).

Theres 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.

So Israel should control Palestinian communications because they are in control and dubiously claim legal ownership of settlements?

Communication is a tool of freedom and these comments seem so willing to give it away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com