Starlink is not licensed to operate in Myanmar. While Dreyer didn’t say how the terminals were disabled, it’s known that Starlink can disable individual terminals based on their ID numbers or use geofencing to block areas from receiving signals.
On Monday, Myanmar state media reported that “Myanmar’s military has shut down a major online scam operation near the border with Thailand, detaining more than 2,000 people and seizing dozens of Starlink satellite Internet terminals,” according to an Associated Press article. The army reportedly raided a cybercrime center known as KK Park as part of operations that began in early September. The operations reportedly targeted 260 unregistered buildings and resulted in seizure of 30 Starlink terminals and detention of 2,198 people.
…
Satellite images and drone footage recently showed “frenetic building work in the heavily guarded compounds around Myawaddy on the Thailand-Myanmar border, which appear to be using Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite Internet service on a huge scale,” Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported last week.
…
An October 2024 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime described the use of Starlink in fraud operations. About 80 “Starlink satellite dishes linked to cyber-enabled fraud operations” were seized between April and June 2024 in Myanmar and Thailand, the report said. Starlink is prohibited in both countries.
“Despite Starlink use being strictly monitored and, in some cases, restricted through geofencing, organized crime groups appear to have found ways around existing security protocols in order to access the remote high-speed Internet connectivity made possible by this portable technology,” the report said.
In July this year, US Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) urged SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to prevent criminals from using Starlink for scam operations that target Americans.
I don't understand this comment. A solution to what? I'd say I'm pretty anti-Musk in general, but this seems like the right move. My understanding is Starlink's intent is to provide competition in...
I don't understand this comment. A solution to what? I'd say I'm pretty anti-Musk in general, but this seems like the right move. My understanding is Starlink's intent is to provide competition in the internet provider space with a focus on places that aren't easily connected to fixed infrastructure, not to help facilitate illegal activity.
Or is the complaint that they weren't proactive enough in removing these devices? Ideally no ISP can see what you're doing well enough to do that sort of invasive monitoring. Maybe they just needed to be geofencing better? Although honestly it is kind of a weird burden to put on companies to say that they need to be adhering to local regulations on products smuggled to places they don't operate (ie. if they aren't operating in those countries why would they be spending time implementing anything related to those countries, even blocks?).
Was just saying that a global network that can arbitrarily disable nodes based on "criminal activity" can easily be co-opted into a global censorship network. The competition is welcome...
Was just saying that a global network that can arbitrarily disable nodes based on "criminal activity" can easily be co-opted into a global censorship network. The competition is welcome (especially in Canada) but - as much as I love the idea of satellite internet - I would not buy into it as a long-term solution.
So the complaint is that they aren't an unrestricted safe haven ISP that allows any and all usage, including deliberately protecting known criminal activity reported by international law...
So the complaint is that they aren't an unrestricted safe haven ISP that allows any and all usage, including deliberately protecting known criminal activity reported by international law enforcement? Of course they aren't. I don't think that's what any serious ISP anywhere wants to be. That will likely never exist and I think it's pretty rough to argue it would even be a good thing. If that's what you're looking for I suspect you'll be looking forever.
As it stands it seems that Starlink only even bothers with moderation when specifically pushed to do so. There was really nothing legal about the devices in the article because in addition to being used to commit crimes they were illegally installed in a country that they weren't allowed to be. Even if there was no regulation on it at all it's not great to become known as the criminal ISP with a horrible public reputation and potentially resulting in your traffic being rejected by various other nodes for their own risk mitigation, either by choice or regulation that impacts them.
Yea, what I'm looking for in "the internet" doesn't actually exist right now. Not worth much of a conversation, really. I want a network that connects me to the people in my city without it being...
Yea, what I'm looking for in "the internet" doesn't actually exist right now. Not worth much of a conversation, really. I want a network that connects me to the people in my city without it being owned by a massive corporation.
From the article:
…
…
aaaand this is exactly why starlink isn't a solution
I don't understand this comment. A solution to what? I'd say I'm pretty anti-Musk in general, but this seems like the right move. My understanding is Starlink's intent is to provide competition in the internet provider space with a focus on places that aren't easily connected to fixed infrastructure, not to help facilitate illegal activity.
Or is the complaint that they weren't proactive enough in removing these devices? Ideally no ISP can see what you're doing well enough to do that sort of invasive monitoring. Maybe they just needed to be geofencing better? Although honestly it is kind of a weird burden to put on companies to say that they need to be adhering to local regulations on products smuggled to places they don't operate (ie. if they aren't operating in those countries why would they be spending time implementing anything related to those countries, even blocks?).
Was just saying that a global network that can arbitrarily disable nodes based on "criminal activity" can easily be co-opted into a global censorship network. The competition is welcome (especially in Canada) but - as much as I love the idea of satellite internet - I would not buy into it as a long-term solution.
So the complaint is that they aren't an unrestricted safe haven ISP that allows any and all usage, including deliberately protecting known criminal activity reported by international law enforcement? Of course they aren't. I don't think that's what any serious ISP anywhere wants to be. That will likely never exist and I think it's pretty rough to argue it would even be a good thing. If that's what you're looking for I suspect you'll be looking forever.
As it stands it seems that Starlink only even bothers with moderation when specifically pushed to do so. There was really nothing legal about the devices in the article because in addition to being used to commit crimes they were illegally installed in a country that they weren't allowed to be. Even if there was no regulation on it at all it's not great to become known as the criminal ISP with a horrible public reputation and potentially resulting in your traffic being rejected by various other nodes for their own risk mitigation, either by choice or regulation that impacts them.
Yea, what I'm looking for in "the internet" doesn't actually exist right now. Not worth much of a conversation, really. I want a network that connects me to the people in my city without it being owned by a massive corporation.