SpaceX: Arrest warrant for YouTuber who broke into launch site in Texas | Hacker News Reader

SpaceX: Arrest warrant for YouTuber who broke into launch site in Texas

independent.co.uk

25 pointsPaul_S16 comments

Yeah, seems like all the correct things are happening.

1. Person did something stupid and knows it

2. SpaceX has to take action, because its dangerous and boundaries have to be upheld

3. Police is doing their job

Most curious about the outcome/penalty though, since intent matters - like the trespasser wasn't trying to steal stuff (besides cool pics) as far as it looks like. So wouldnt be surprised if SpaceX drops the charges after the initial scare.

The problem is that SpaceX has stakeholders involved in national security, so they have to be hard on rule-breakers as a matter of principle. Sure, this guy meant no harm, but if it becomes clear that any random idiot can jump a fence and get close to ITAR-regulated equipment, what's stopping a spy from pretending to be another clueless vlogger and siphoning classified photos/information?

Although I do agree that in this case the YouTuber shouldn't go to prison or anything harsh like that, but they should use this incident as a teaching moment to warn the next trespasser that they won't be as friendly.

The effect of ITAR is always overrated here. It's not some secret clearance. It just says that if you're not a US citizen or a "US person" you can't be involved with it. There's no security clearance required from the US government. So this guy who is likely a US citizen can look at it without issue. The issues are the trespassing on an active construction site among other issues.

"“Yes it was wrong, yes it was illegal. But in my eyes, in that time of moment, I didn’t really think about that...What went through my mind was, ‘Okay, I’m never gonna get this opportunity again.’ So I went for it. And, well, this happened,”

People, please note that this is criminal trespass. While it is a non-violent crime, it can still screw your future.

We have about 2 acres of greenhouses surrounded by a 8ft fence that is marked with private property/no trespassing signs. The same kid kept breaking into the greenhouses, and other than making my dogs go bonkers, the kid caused no harm. But as my lawyer demanded that a police report be filed, and because we have several cameras in and around the green houses, the kid was an easy bust and prosecution. And he saw no crime with satisfying his curiosity about our greenhouses until it came time for his scholarship and job applications. The boy is royally screwed.

> until it came time for his scholarship and job applications. The boy is royally screwed.

So he can't become a better person (no scholarships) and can't bring benefits to the society (job applications)?

I agree that he's wrong, but why to choose such a way of punishing?

Your lawyer may have recommended it but it seems to me that you could have chosen not to mess up that kid's life. Ah well, at least your dogs are happier!

You're not coming across as the aggrieved party here. Kid, curiosity, no harm, etc. Would a ride home in a police car have done the trick maybe ?

It sounds like you're abdicating responsibility for your decision to the lawyer. You must realise your lawyer can't represent you on a legal matter without your consent ?

No harm that time. But if it does not gets noticed what happens next time? He takes his friends? Or gets into another properly where he gets hurt? THe more disturbing is that such a matter can cost your school and scholarship. That's not the lawyers or the posters fault.

Please read again. You do not understand the risks where one does not pro-actively protect one self.

Please note 'attractive nuisance' and 'calculus of negligence'. For a claimant's lawyer to be successful in California; that is, a settlement without going to trial, all they have to do is file a tort based on one or both of these two.

Based on on my insurance agent and my legal counsel, I had no choice to pursue the criminal prosecutorial path or my lawyer and insurance carrier would be legally allowed to walk away from me. So I chose my family's livelihood over the kid.

Your analysis was shallow and has no bearing on the legal reality of my world. If that is not how your world works, than good for you.

I love the 'as my lawyer demanded' as if professional services and council have any binding authority over your personal sovereignty.

what a lovely and intoxicating innocence.

obviously that's not the case. more likely the lawyer made a strong argument for reporting the offense that GP couldn't ignore. I'd guess it has something to do with liability. ridiculous as it may seem, people can and do win personal injury suits where they got hurt while trespassing. perhaps if GP failed to respond to known and repeated instances of trespassing, it would expose them to additional legal risk.

Who is really running the show here if you defer every decision to your lawyer instead of your own common sense? You let this guy ruin that kid's life, and paid him for the privilege?

This could have been deadly, no use ignoring it until someone gets killed.

SpaceX have to walk a fine line here... They have a massive fan base which is fairly important to the success of the company (if the fan base turns against them, they will probably lose public funding and regulatory support).

Yet a small proportion of the fan base is a little too enthusiastic. If they prosecute these people too aggressively it might not look good from a PR perspective.

I don't think much of the Starship fanbase is watching 'Loco Vlogs'. As much as you can characterize an internet fanbase (very difficult to do) I don't believe the fanbase will ever get mad for SpaceX or the authorities going after trespassers. Trespassers cause delays and present a risk to the program we all want to see succeed.

SpaceX has been very cooperative with the fanbase, allowing photographers and different outlets to come onto the property and setup cameras for streaming.

I can see the fanbase getting upset if they change something with that, but I just don't see them getting upset over a trespasser being punished.

Sure, but there are other cases the line is more blurred. For example when high res telephoto lenses catch an employee scratching their ass, and then someone writes a blog post about it...

That kind of thing can't be good for employee morale, but prosecuting it would probably be seen as overstepping the line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com