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

Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#41

Post by mistrial9 »

prepend wrote: post #39
mistrial9 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no it is nothing at all like blaming vegetables.. there is no cell phone coverage in the distant edges of inland Brazil.. and cell towers can track users.. Starlink directly enables clandestine communication where that is otherwise not possible.

But starlink does that for everyone. They don’t do anything special for mining. Just like the mining operations use petroleum to mine. Petroleum directly enabled mining. Mining uses electricity. Electricity directly enabled mining. Directly enabling something doesn’t matter. If the tool is made to only do that, then it does. There are a lot of cases in the US about this. Like Betamax case where the court ruled that j…

no - in those cases you mention there are alternatives or work-around products available.. what work-around product is available to have real-time communication from remote spots in the Brazilian territory ?

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#42

Post by ronsor »

protastus wrote: post #40
belval wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?

Elon Musk is not in Brazil so action against him would be a waste of time. Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvi…

> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts.

This defeats the purpose of corporations.

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#43

Post by 7jjjjjjj »

ronsor wrote: post #42
protastus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk is not in Brazil so action against him would be a waste of time. Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvi…

> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. This defeats the purpose of corporations.

If that's the purpose of corporations, I'm happy to declare victory.

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#44

Post by Qem »

ronsor wrote: post #42
protastus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk is not in Brazil so action against him would be a waste of time. Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvi…

> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. This defeats the purpose of corporations.

> This defeats the purpose of corporations.

I'm this context, this declaration makes me believe the purpose of corporations is to allow billionaires to disregard laws.

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#45

Post by ronsor »

Qem wrote: post #44
ronsor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. This defeats the purpose of corporations.

> This defeats the purpose of corporations. I'm this context, this declaration makes me believe the purpose of corporations is to allow billionaires to disregard laws.

Musk is a minority shareholder in SpaceX which owns Starlink. One corporation (SpaceX) is not supposed to be liable for the actions of another (X), even if they are owned by the same person.

The correct move is to go after Musk directly.

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#46

Post by gruez »

7jjjjjjj wrote: post #43
ronsor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. This defeats the purpose of corporations.

If that's the purpose of corporations, I'm happy to declare victory.

SpaceX has other shareholders as well. How would you feel if the Florida government got mad at blackrock for ESG, fined them for it, and took that money out of your 401k?

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#47

Post by Qem »

ronsor wrote: post #45
Qem wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This defeats the purpose of corporations. I'm this context, this declaration makes me believe the purpose of corporations is to allow billionaires to disregard laws.

Musk is a minority shareholder in SpaceX which owns Starlink. One corporation (SpaceX) is not supposed to be liable for the actions of another (X), even if they are owned by the same person. The correct move is to go after Musk directly.

Musk doesn't refrain from using his companies, mainly Twitter, as weapons in petty personal disputes and showdowns. It's a situation that allows piercing the corporate veil, even under US law. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#...

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#48

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

protastus wrote: post #40
belval wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?

Elon Musk is not in Brazil so action against him would be a waste of time. Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvi…

> supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership

They don’t though. And this is obvious even with the most basic web search. To me this looks like political intimidation and retribution by an out of control Supreme Court justice (Alexandre de Moraes). It’s a shame to see Brazil turn into a lawless banana republic.

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#49

Post by gamblor956 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #5

Isn’t Brazil like notoriously light on rule of law? I don’t feel surprised or outraged by this, more like— what did you expect?

Legally this is known as "piercing the veil" and if generally reserved for situations like this where someone is attempting to use a corporation to evade responsibility for law breaking.

Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

#50

Post by prepend »

mistrial9 wrote: post #41
prepend wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But starlink does that for everyone. They don’t do anything special for mining. Just like the mining operations use petroleum to mine. Petroleum directly enabled mining. Mining uses electricity. Electricity directly enabled mining. Directly enabling something doesn’t matter. If the tool is made to only do that, then it does. There are a lot of cases in the US about this. Like Betamax case where the court ruled that j…

no - in those cases you mention there are alternatives or work-around products available.. what work-around product is available to have real-time communication from remote spots in the Brazilian territory ?

Satellite internet from other providers that’s available at a higher price.

But that’s not relevant. Because starlink is usable by everyone. Do you think they should have some way to prevent mining companies from using it? Is there a law in Brazil that prevents starlink from selling to miners?

Post reply on HN