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

291–300 of 306 posts

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#291

Post by latency-guy2 »

kennykartman wrote: post #269
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…

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…

There's a number of people who try and influence elections, money is not nearly as effective as you think it is. Or else a few people that have a few billion in their coffers would run and have won elections in places and other things far more than what they currently do/have done.

The wealthiest entity in the USA is the government itself. It's not even close.

Further, if currency was not able to influence things then that eliminates the main purpose of fiat currency, there is obviously a place for it in any case. Just because you don't like the direction it's being used doesn't mean you have a reasonable position either. Fiat is a benefit to the government in all ways and its in it's best interest to uphold the strength of their currency, not just for the locals to the land in the borders, but if they want to influence the rest of the world.

You should go down the path of "fair elections" because you otherwise lose all points for being vague and imprecise that no one can contest you on because you don't think we are worth the argument.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#292

Post by smsm42 »

15155 wrote: post #289
smsm42 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pumping out a lot of noise is usually easier than locating a source of a weak signal. That said, Russians likely have the necessary technology. The question would be do they feel like selling it to Iran and are Iranians capable of using it properly?

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#293

Post by woooooo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #287
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…

> 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.

Obviously I and most westerners are on the side of the angels for this incident but we also hear lots of calls in the West to ban "Russian and Chinese bots", or "pro terrorist views" or whatever. Principled views shouldn't do a 180 based on the subjects involved.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#294

Post by derbOac »

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…

I'm genuinely a bit confused — it seems like you're arguing that people should be able to have freedom to choose what to do, but not?

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#296

Post by 15155 »

smsm42 wrote: post #292
15155 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pumping out a lot of noise is usually easier than locating a source of a weak signal. That said, Russians likely have the necessary technology. The question would be do they feel like selling it to Iran and are Iranians capable of using it properly?

> Pumping out a lot of noise is usually easier than locating a source of a weak signal.

Not at the frequencies in question - this isn't 2.4GHz where a magnetron ripped out of a microwave oven will wreak havoc, these are highly-directional, beamformed signals. Also, ostensibly, there should be zero unapproved energy whatsoever in those bands.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#297

Post by kennykartman »

derbOac wrote: post #294
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…

I'm genuinely a bit confused — it seems like you're arguing that people should be able to have freedom to choose what to do, but not?

People can do whatever they think is right, of course (: so there is no "should". My point was that saying that a government should not impose communication restrictions is not necessary right. So, no, people should be happy: if they are happy without freedom, then let them be. If they are unhappy without freedom, let them make a revolution.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#298

Post by kennykartman »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #290
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.

> 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.

I'm aware of that and I agree. So what? My comment was that they are not the only billionaires.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#299

Post by kennykartman »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #291
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…

There's a number of people who try and influence elections, money is not nearly as effective as you think it is. Or else a few people that have a few billion in their coffers would run and have won elections in places and other things far more than what they currently do/have done. The wealthiest entity in the USA is the government itself. It's not even close. Further, if currency was not able to influence things the…

If tomorrow I owned 1 zillion dollar, that wouldn't make me able to change the course of next US (presidential) elections. It's not the only factor, ofc, but it is a very relevant one. Let's consider other factors that might be relevant: influence, visibility, arguments, fame, political weight, political knowledge, time, will. There are others. Someone with no influence on these factors and no money can hardly influence the outcomes of a nation election. If that someone was made a billionaire overnight, it can gain control over some factors, improving the likelihood of their impact over the next elections. Will they succeed? Not necessarily, but that their impact can become perceivable is undeniable.

Fair elections: in the US there are a bunch of practices related to vote that I don't consider fair. First and foremost, how votes are counted. Then, how money can be used to finance parties and campaigns. Gerrymandering is another one.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#300

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #288
kennykartman wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN