Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

SpaceX already does geo-lock them to an extend. But the terminals are exported to so many countries that any meaningful controls are impossible.

View on HN

Terminals in Ukraine are whitelisted (with whitelist being supplied by the Ukrainian MoD). Meaningful controls are possible, it's what led to the ukrainian forces advancing and liberating territory recently.

You missed my point. It's impossible to meaningfully control the export of physical terminals. But as I pointed out above, SpaceX has already been doing some geo-locking.

I did not. Whitelisting means Russia can not buy terminals in UAE and use them in Ukraine. Because the terminals in UAE are not whitelisted to be used in Ukraine. Therefore, it's possible to control the export of terminals.

I suspect nradov argues that this type of geofencing + allow-listing is not typically what people mean when they talk about "export control", which I agree with.

And while geofencing + allow-listing for sure provide value in e.g the Ukrainian conflict, it's a weak protection compared to goods that are actually under strict export control (e.g ITAR), and will always have to be done after the fact. Russia could for example put Starlink on drones launched from the Baltic Ocean targeting Poland or whatever.

The terminal knows where it is at all times.

I think what's actually funnier is that the satellite shooting the laser has to know where the terminal is with pin point accuracy too. So it's pretty easy to cut off targeting to a vast chunk of the planet.

The sats don't use lasers to communicate with terminals, just regular radio waves, they only use lasers for inter-satellite communication

Starlink cells are ~15 miles wide BTW.

Yes but the problem is that the battle lines are fluid and the drones are obviously aiming for the Ukrainian side.

I know this is a meme but for those at home the whole point of a war is to cross over the front line into the opponent's territory and capture it. If your comms are disabled when you cross the front you can't really fight. So "just disable Starlink within Russian territory" does not solve anything.

You can have a hybrid approach - deny access in that area by default but have a secure way to whitelist specific terminals for short periods (mission duration)

So Starlink ‘Offence’ could be an upsell on a basic ‘Defence’ plan.

Simple solutions: block all Starlink terminals that aren’t whitelisted upon entering Russian territory or Ukrainian conflict zones.

This will prevent Russians importing Starlink terminals and then deploying them in Ukraine.

Work with Ukrainians to whitelist all their terminals.

Which is exactly what they are doing.

https://unn.ua/en/news/ukraine-launches-starlink-whitelist-i...

It’s missing the part that any non-whitelisted Starlink terminal entering Russian territory should automatically be blocked.

This would deny all Russians the use of Starlink.

The issue isn't Russians using Starlink inside Russia (they have other option, e.g. wired system, etc. there); the issue was their using it for drones and other combat operations inside Ukraine (including Ukrainian territory presently held by Russia).

The point is that in order for Russians to use Starlink in combat operations in Ukraine, they first have to import them to Russia. All non-whitelisted Starlink terminals entering Russia should be immediately bricked to prevent this. It's an important part for denying Russians the use of Starlink.

It's beyond sickening what none of you even bother with the idea what a civilian service should not be used by the military, especially in the zone of the conflict - by any side.

Why not? Assuming you want one of the sides to win, why would you not want your side to use every (ethical) means available to do that?

War is not ethical.

Starting a war is not ethical. Defending your territory from aggressors is 100% ethical.

Of course it is.

This line of thinking would lead to the world being led by bastards. There are ethical uses of war and violence.

Starting a war maybe not (depending on circumstances), but how is getting attacked and fighting a war to prevent invasion not ethical?

"Civilian service" - lol.

SpaceX is a privately-owned defense services company. Their #1 client is the United States. Their launches out of Vandenberg occur because the United States Space Force allows them to happen.

Are you on their board? Who are you to make the call that the product they are offering is a "civilian" (only?) service?

The Starlink terminal can't know based on only its position which side it's being used by. Equipment is often used in enemy territory.

That is a tiny minority of the use. The vast majority of Russian use has been on Russian controlled land.

Sure. But if you geoblock all use on Russian controlled land, you're also blocking Ukrainian use on Russian controlled land. I have no idea if that would cause issues or not, but it's not that far fetched to imagine it might.

It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't

I understand this reference

That all depends on what the meaning of is is.

It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.

This makes it a very, very dirty terminal.

How would they geolock terminals on active conflict zone where conflict line changes in realtime. Terminals also cross miles across the line on drones etc. regularly. There was also pushback from Ukraine forces, when they are asked to register their terminals to be whitelisted a while back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com