Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>]

This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from
hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this
past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea
based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack.
Starlink - and that author - now state that (
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )

The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request from
Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine. At no
point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea. Moreover, our
terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action,
as we are a civilian system, so they were again asking for something that
was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is building Starshield for the US
government, which is similar to, but much smaller than Starlink, as it will
not have to handle millions of users. That system will be owned and
controlled by the US government.
Quote
Walter Isaacson
@WalterIsaacson
·
Sep 8
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was
enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it
for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it,
because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a… Show more
<https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361>

Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the us
government, he would have complied.

I will refrain from editorializing.


On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
wrote:

> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with
> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
>
> Don't forget GLONASS. 😉
>
> On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>
> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
> them.
>
> I sure don't
> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
> random narcissist billionaire.
>
>
> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill () herrin us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos