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

Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

france24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 187 posts

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#41

Post by vineyardmike »

l0ng1nu5 wrote: post #21
stickfigure wrote: post #10

Just legalize it already. This is stupid.

The only conclusion i can draw from all this insanity is that the powers that be want things to be this way.

Of course, "the powers that be" can want things to change, but not want to pay the cost required to truly change it.

As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach, and it dramatically reduced crime, but it's not clear that citizens are actually happy with this outcome as.

Of course, it could be possible that leaders are corrupt, but it could simply be that the cost to fixing things is very high.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#42

Post by thephyber »

idiotsecant wrote: post #3

This strikes me as not a very good technique. With minimal help from starlink law enforcement could find every sub out there. Anyhow, what does this buy you that an offline gps connected controller does not?

GPS is only a confirmation of positioning. It doesn't free you from having a pilot in the vehicle.

Starlink opens the possibility for remote command & control. It opens up the possibility to fully remote drone capabilities.

Starlink should probably be disabled except to rarely report sensor data and accept new routing commands, so law enforcement can’t use EM scanning to find the source.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#43

Post by tayo42 »

stickfigure wrote: post #37
gambiting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cocaine, I could maybe see the argument. But the article also said there was another submarine seized with 4.5BN worth of meth aboard. And I really hope you aren't suggesting legalising meth. I could see the argument that if other amphetamines were legal no one would use meth, but.....I don't think that's necessarily true. All the illegal meth would have to do to keep existing is to be cheaper than legal speed.

We already have legal meth, it's branded Adderall® and we regularly prescribe it to children, grad students, and hedge fund managers. You just have to be rich enough to afford the 'scrip.

The brand name is Desoxyn for meth

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#45

Post by achow »

rkagerer wrote: post #24

"The vessel was not carrying drugs" Why wouldn't they track it and wait until it rendezvoused with people they could arrest? Also, today I learned it's illegal to operate a semi-submersible in Colombia.

Perhaps because they watched it long enough to know that it is not going to rendezvous with anyone, and if they wait longer it may turn around and they will lose sight of it?

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#46

Post by DanielVZ »

rkagerer wrote: post #24

"The vessel was not carrying drugs" Why wouldn't they track it and wait until it rendezvoused with people they could arrest? Also, today I learned it's illegal to operate a semi-submersible in Colombia.

I wonder how much of this is just a publicity stunt. Last time I dove deep into studying corruption in Latin America at University, Colombia was pretty much captive to the cartels. Hope it has gotten better now but I’m not sure if that’s the case given the massive Colombian diaspora that keeps increasing.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#47

Post by vineyardmike »

crackrook wrote: post #40
bigmadshoe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on drugs has failed. Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it. We need to a) legalize drugs, b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and c) get unsafe drugs off the streets. I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose.…

I know we have data that shows just how harmful the war on drugs has been, but I'm curious if we have data showing that legalization in a modern society, with global supply chains and marketing campaigns, does not result in a bunch of people who previously wouldn't have done drugs - for fear of legal consequences, or just because they're hard to obtain - suddenly doing drugs. I'm genuinely interested to know, this is…

> To be honest, if I could get a dime bag at the corner store, I'm not certain that I would be able to resist the temptation to do so for the first time

When people discuss "legalizing drugs" in the context of ending the war on drugs, they don't necessarily mean it should be sold at corner stores. Generally the exception to this is Cannabis which has its own legalization movement, but not hard drugs.

> I feel decriminalizing possession and keeping distribution illegal would be my first choice

This is usually what legalization means in most practical policy discussions. They want to make possession legal or "de-criminalized", not distribution. Because they want addicts to feel safe seeking help.

Portugal had a big "legalization" push around 2000 which saw a huge uptick in rehab and addiction treatment cases, and it's often the program advocates point to. Oregon tried this in 2020, but didn't couple it with strong social support (recovery programs) and rolled it back a few years later. Oregon is often what detractors point to.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#50

Post by zarzavat »

Retric wrote: post #16
zarzavat wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a simple radio transmitter could fulfil that function.

At the cost of it being really obvious where you are. However the bigger draw is probably high bandwidth two way communication globally. No need for an obvious route as you can use GPS to get near US waters before turning it on, while still being in control of location of delivery or even meet up with it on the open ocean.

Not as obvious as a Starlink transmitter though!

Sending the position only requires a few bits, let's say 48. A position update requires even less, depending on how far it could have travelled since the last known position. At such low data rates you could hide the transmission quite effectively.

Post reply on HN