Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran is likely jamming Starlink

timesofisrael.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 306 posts

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#281

Post by feb012025 »

oldandboring wrote: post #278
feb012025 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the impression most people have is that the United States is no longer dependent on Saudi oil. The main reason we're their most pivotal ally is to encourage normalization with Israel, and to make sure they help counter Iran. So kind of the same root cause. Beyond that, the Houthi / Saudi conflict is a lot less asymmetric, which I think plays a factor in people's response to it. The Houthis have more territori…

Respectfully, you're making things up and adding the words "I think the impression most people have". That's motivated reasoning. If you're actually interested in the geopolitics of this I suggest you just spend some time tonight reading about these relationships and their history.

To be fair, I'll admit there's somewhat of a double standard when it comes to silence in regard to US support for Saudi Arabia vs Israel. But realistically, for me, I don't think the answer is to offer full-throated support to Israel and to be quiet about issues Americans have with it. Especially if it risks spiraling into a broader conflict.

I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#282

Post by kennykartman »

smsm42 wrote: post #274
kennykartman wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US democracy is quite weird, though, because it's IMHO quite far from the people: billionaires can influence the outcomes of elections by steering the votes where the most paying candidate (or the most knowledgeable, or someone else with other skills) desires. This is not something that people can influence easily, so I find hard to believe that a government is legitimate just by the label on the packaging. I won…

Billionaires can do this in any country. In US, the difference is other billionaires than the rulers of the country are allowed to exist.

I think this is not true. Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime.

Edit just to clarify: presence of billionaires that are not hostile to the regime does not mean they are allies either.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#283

Post by smsm42 »

kennykartman wrote: post #282
smsm42 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires can do this in any country. In US, the difference is other billionaires than the rulers of the country are allowed to exist.

I think this is not true. Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime. Edit just to clarify: presence of billionaires that are not hostile to the regime does not mean they are allies either.

Billionaires there are subjects to the regime, and only remain billionaires while they are absolutely loyal to the regime. And threat of disagreement not only would cause them stop being billionaires, but also stop breathing altogether. I mean, running away could be an option, but then one stops being Russian or Chinese billionaire. And also this may not preclude "stop breathing" option, as some examples show.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#284

Post by kennykartman »

skandinaff wrote: post #242
kennykartman wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing a bit the devil's advocate here, but > This is why all of those "national great firewalls" shouldn't exist in the first place This is a kind of colonialist thinking that is, IMO, a problem in the western society. There are indeed drawbacks in a lack of freedom, but assuming that a government should not be able to filter the content diffused to the population is wrong in principle. You don't get to choose what…

But wouldn't the position of a strong government be to trust it's people, and allow them to see the whole spectrum of information available in the world, and give them essentially the right to decide what's "right or wrong"? I don't see how being free from any information filtering on behalf of some benevolent leader is USA-centric?

The USA centric view I was referring to is the one where lack of freedom is wrong, since it benefits the USA ideology of maximal freedom. Which is not in generally shared by all western countries (in Europe socialism and state ownership is much more present, for instance), and it's not necessary the most accurate view of real USA (there might be more "free" countries, like Switzerland), it's just that it benefits the perceived image of USA.

With this in mind, no, I don't share the view that a strong government should trust the people: people can easily be steered by foreign parties that want to gain soft power (example: Russia and recent anti-EU propaganda in Poland, Romania and Georgia). It's very hard to draw a line between what is "right" and what is "too much", but I don't think that excessive freedom is an obvious route to an healthy society (that is, a society that has peace and people are happy).

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#285

Post by kennykartman »

smsm42 wrote: post #283
kennykartman wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is not true. Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime. Edit just to clarify: presence of billionaires that are not hostile to the regime does not mean they are allies either.

Billionaires there are subjects to the regime, and only remain billionaires while they are absolutely loyal to the regime. And threat of disagreement not only would cause them stop being billionaires, but also stop breathing altogether. I mean, running away could be an option, but then one stops being Russian or Chinese billionaire. And also this may not preclude "stop breathing" option, as some examples show.

You're right! Still they are billionaires in their countries with many benefits for being billionaires! Except, steering the government where they want - which typically means getting even richer. In the USA this happened, though.

My point is that, even in self-proclamed democracies, it's quite hard to actually give power to the people, precisely as in regimes. It's not a "it's all the same" position, of course: I mean to say that taking some values as absolute is not great if we don't clearly define what we are optimizing for. The USA model of democracy doesn't optimize for individual freedom nor for general population happiness.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#286

Post by verall »

greensh wrote: post #249
ushtaritk421 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as an American I think that all forms of government that are not liberal democracy basically are illegitimate. We can have relationships of convenience with other governments, but it should be known by such governments somewhere in the back of their minds that we would prefer to see them replaced by a liberal democracy. The Iranian state has not shown itself to be one that is very convenient for us to temporaril…

But USA can't even be on the side of their own people. I can see the recent ICE shooting, health care issues, clearly corrupt government officials. Why should anybody trust them with another country? Also the US has massive protests aswell, would it be okay for china to liberate the USA, since china itself is lead by a "democratic party"? They could argue the USA isn't a real liberal democracy. > why not let them vot…

There's a big gap between "national firewalls shouldn't exist" and "country should invade/"liberate" another country to prevent national firewall (or insert other disliked policy)".

So to respond directly:

> Why should anybody trust them with another country?

They should not and should not need to trust them with another country

> would it be okay for china to liberate the USA

no, it wouldn't. But if China felt that the USA gov't was like, not cool, they could impose sanctions or not trade with USA.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#287

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kennykartman wrote: post #239
ACCount37 wrote: post #36

Not too surprising, given that Starlink operates in Iran without a permit, "space pirate radio" style, and has something of a habit of making the access free when major protests happen and the government imposes a network blackout. Iranian government and Starlink have no love for each other, clearly. It's a pattern by now: whenever a government wants to do something awful, it shuts down internet access - so that no o…

Playing a bit the devil's advocate here, but > This is why all of those "national great firewalls" shouldn't exist in the first place This is a kind of colonialist thinking that is, IMO, a problem in the western society. There are indeed drawbacks in a lack of freedom, but assuming that a government should not be able to filter the content diffused to the population is wrong in principle. You don't get to choose what…

> colonialist thinking that is, IMO, a problem in the western society

Iran has commanded empires for millennia. Longer than continental Europe.

Iranians getting their hands on Starlink terminals is as “colonial” as revolutionary France helping the American colonists usurp the British.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#288

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kennykartman wrote: post #284
skandinaff wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wouldn't the position of a strong government be to trust it's people, and allow them to see the whole spectrum of information available in the world, and give them essentially the right to decide what's "right or wrong"? I don't see how being free from any information filtering on behalf of some benevolent leader is USA-centric?

The USA centric view I was referring to is the one where lack of freedom is wrong, since it benefits the USA ideology of maximal freedom. Which is not in generally shared by all western countries (in Europe socialism and state ownership is much more present, for instance), and it's not necessary the most accurate view of real USA (there might be more "free" countries, like Switzerland), it's just that it benefits the…

> where lack of freedom is wrong

Straw man.

Nobody is arguing for maximal freedoms for Iranians. This is literally whether some Iranians are able to get their hands on Starlink terminals if they want to.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#289

Post by 15155 »

smsm42 wrote: post #277
tim-tday wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have the ability to jam a signal you have the ability to triangulate the source of a signal.

How it's related? Jamming is just drowning signal in noise, how does it help locating the source of the signal?

Because ostensibly, whoever engineered the jammer (especially at these wavelengths) is capable of designing a capable-enough receiver.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#290

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kennykartman wrote: post #282
smsm42 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires can do this in any country. In US, the difference is other billionaires than the rulers of the country are allowed to exist.

I think this is not true. Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime. Edit just to clarify: presence of billionaires that are not hostile to the regime does not mean they are allies either.

> Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime

Putin and Xi are billionaires. So are their cronies. They get richer faster than the rest of their population because they’re literally billionaires in control of the regime with no peaceful path to removing them.

Post reply on HN