> Indeed, Musk has publicly cited concerns that Ukrainian efforts to reclaim the peninsula could prompt a nuclear response from Russia, a fear that, according to Isaacson, was heightened by conversations he had with senior Russian officials.
Musk's suggestion that he hadn't expected to be at the center of a military conflict also seems to be missing some self reflection:
> "How am I in this war?" Musk asked Isaacson during an interview, according to an excerpt from the book reported on by CNN. "Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes."
Yeah right: 1. You're a top-down guy at the helm of starlink. 2. You support one party by sponsoring them with devices that present a major military advantage. 3. You're surprised the devices aren't used to look at cute cat pictures.
Off course you'll get some angry calls when you interfere. Once you'll have control over information flows, you'll inevitably need to moderate those flows.
Expect logical contradictions in statements following that line. It's a medical condition called: "I don't like _____ butt." One of the symptoms is argument in bad faith. There will be an epidemic next year.
Yes, and it seems Ukraine actually did attack a base within Crimea later, the specifically forbidden thing, without any nuclear response. I can imagine it's a difficult call for Musk to make, as nobody wants to be responsible for nuclear war, and hindsight is 20/20, but it's yet another bluff in a long string of bluffs as you say.
I could see this perhaps getting him arrested, though probably not. I think it should though.
Paragraph (a) of the second clause of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. 959 [1], says that "Whoever, within the United States, enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
Specifically denying a single nation access to a globally provided service based on the request of a foreign power at war with that nation should be considered acting in their service.
However, this is only one of several illegal things Musk is accused of being connected to (Tesla car safety issues causing accidents, failure to pay/misleading creditors, etc.).
I suspect that if an investigation finds evidence that he did this after consultation with a foreign agent, rather than entirely of his own volition, then he may be in some real trouble here.
I hate the guy as much as anyone, but using commercial sats for warfare could make them legitimate targets. What’s a corporations obligations? Will the US reimburse Starlink? Will the Space Force protect them?
What happens when an errant bomb guided by Starlink kills a bunch of kids? Is it Elon’s fault? Seems like someone should draw up Codes of War for commercial orgs if you want them fighting them.
that's actually a great point, though I dont think the Russians threatened to shoot down his satellites in this case, and we dont know at this point what assurances if any the US was willing to give him, since this is just his side of the story, apparently.
more importantly, this is not the reason Musk himself offered. The reason he himself offered was that he wanted to affect the direction of the war itself (which he feared would lead to "nuclear war"), and his claims that he "doesn't want to be involved in the war" seem a little hollow when he directly confers with the country that has gone to war with his customer and he then acts directly on their recommendations, not those of his actual customer.
I think if his concern is that Russia would down his own satellites leading to financial loss for his business, he should make that the reason. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.
Personally, I do agree that enforcing a general policy (which they do have written in their terms) forbidding military use is a good thing, but that a single individual making discretionary decisions case by case is a bad thing.
Re "but using commercial sats for warfare" GPS? Or uing terrestrial signals for drone navigation?
The people quoting the TOS are being disingenuous. That caveat is in a lot of click-through licenses for CYA. Enforcing it selectively in Ukraine is a hostile act against what most NATO leaders see as preventing further aggression in Europe.
This article is trash. The title: "after speaking with Russian officials". The image caption: "Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, has denied Ukrainian requests to activate Starlink near Crimea."
In the article: "According to Isaacson, Musk himself ordered Starlink engineers to deactivate the system along the coast of Crimea, thwarting a Ukrainian drone attack on the Russian fleet (the drones "lost connectivity and washed ashore"). He then rejected a direct appeal from a top Ukrainian official to enable the system for future such attacks, per Isaacson."
Further, the article quotes Musk as saying: "Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes."
It makes no other mention of him doing this "after speaking with Russian officials", and literally says "Musk himself ordered [...]"?
The Washington Post article makes clear that Musk was speaking to the Russian ambassador, according to Isaacson, although Musk went further and made it sound like he was talking to Putin himself.
>Although he had readily supported Ukraine, he believed it was reckless for Ukraine to launch an attack on Crimea, which Russia had annexed in 2014. He had just spoken to the Russian ambassador to the United States. (In later conversations with a few other people, he seemed to imply that he had spoken directly to President Vladimir Putin, but to me he said his communications had gone through the ambassador.) The ambassador had explicitly told him that a Ukrainian attack on Crimea would lead to a nuclear response. Musk explained to me in great detail, as I stood behind the bleachers, the Russian laws and doctrines that decreed such a response.
The US army already has an agreement with starlink testing it in a warfighting support capacity. I imagine that not all customers have the same ToS as the one you linked which looks like the boilerplate they distribute "with the kit".
Any sufficiently large entity will negotiate their own terms of service
Why do you think this TOS is the same one Ukraine and other governments sign? Earlier Musk was expressly allowing Ukraine to use Starlink for military purposes, and from what i can tell is still fine with them using it just not in Crimea.
Even this TOS
Even this TOS doesn't say it is prohibited "However, Starlink is not designed or intended for use with or in offensive or defensive weaponry or other comparable end-uses. Custom modifications of the Starlink Kits or Services for military end-uses or military end-users may transform the items into products controlled under U.S. export control laws, specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774) requiring authorizations from the United States government for the export, support, or use outside the United States. " That just means they won't expressly support it and you need US governmental approval.
25 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadThe part where he pulled the plug, or the part where he consulted with Russian officials?
Musk's suggestion that he hadn't expected to be at the center of a military conflict also seems to be missing some self reflection:
> "How am I in this war?" Musk asked Isaacson during an interview, according to an excerpt from the book reported on by CNN. "Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes."
Yeah right: 1. You're a top-down guy at the helm of starlink. 2. You support one party by sponsoring them with devices that present a major military advantage. 3. You're surprised the devices aren't used to look at cute cat pictures.
Off course you'll get some angry calls when you interfere. Once you'll have control over information flows, you'll inevitably need to moderate those flows.
But the stated reason has turned out to be not true, once again Russian officials just used the threat of nukes to try and slow down Ukraine.
Russia has threatened nukes about every second week since the war started for everything under the sun.
None have materialised because they are just that, threats. It's a shame Musk feel for it.
Paragraph (a) of the second clause of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. 959 [1], says that "Whoever, within the United States, enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
Specifically denying a single nation access to a globally provided service based on the request of a foreign power at war with that nation should be considered acting in their service.
However, this is only one of several illegal things Musk is accused of being connected to (Tesla car safety issues causing accidents, failure to pay/misleading creditors, etc.).
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/959
What happens when an errant bomb guided by Starlink kills a bunch of kids? Is it Elon’s fault? Seems like someone should draw up Codes of War for commercial orgs if you want them fighting them.
more importantly, this is not the reason Musk himself offered. The reason he himself offered was that he wanted to affect the direction of the war itself (which he feared would lead to "nuclear war"), and his claims that he "doesn't want to be involved in the war" seem a little hollow when he directly confers with the country that has gone to war with his customer and he then acts directly on their recommendations, not those of his actual customer.
I think if his concern is that Russia would down his own satellites leading to financial loss for his business, he should make that the reason. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.
The people quoting the TOS are being disingenuous. That caveat is in a lot of click-through licenses for CYA. Enforcing it selectively in Ukraine is a hostile act against what most NATO leaders see as preventing further aggression in Europe.
In the article: "According to Isaacson, Musk himself ordered Starlink engineers to deactivate the system along the coast of Crimea, thwarting a Ukrainian drone attack on the Russian fleet (the drones "lost connectivity and washed ashore"). He then rejected a direct appeal from a top Ukrainian official to enable the system for future such attacks, per Isaacson."
Further, the article quotes Musk as saying: "Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes."
It makes no other mention of him doing this "after speaking with Russian officials", and literally says "Musk himself ordered [...]"?
>Although he had readily supported Ukraine, he believed it was reckless for Ukraine to launch an attack on Crimea, which Russia had annexed in 2014. He had just spoken to the Russian ambassador to the United States. (In later conversations with a few other people, he seemed to imply that he had spoken directly to President Vladimir Putin, but to me he said his communications had gone through the ambassador.) The ambassador had explicitly told him that a Ukrainian attack on Crimea would lead to a nuclear response. Musk explained to me in great detail, as I stood behind the bleachers, the Russian laws and doctrines that decreed such a response.
https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64
Any sufficiently large entity will negotiate their own terms of service
https://www.army.mil/article/254316/army_tests_commercial_sa...
https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64
Even this TOS doesn't say it is prohibited "However, Starlink is not designed or intended for use with or in offensive or defensive weaponry or other comparable end-uses. Custom modifications of the Starlink Kits or Services for military end-uses or military end-users may transform the items into products controlled under U.S. export control laws, specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774) requiring authorizations from the United States government for the export, support, or use outside the United States. " That just means they won't expressly support it and you need US governmental approval.
And the military knew there was no contract.
Did the USG approve it like in Iran? Where's Blinken? What about the Crimea sanctions