Elon Musk-controlled satellite internet provider Starlink has told Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel it will not comply with a court order to block social media platform X in the country until its local accounts are unfrozen.

Anatel confirmed the information to Reuters on Monday after its head Carlos Baigorri told Globo TV it had received a note from Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, and passed it onto Brazil’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X, which is also owned by billionaire Musk, for lacking a legal representative in Brazil.

The move also led to the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts in Brazil. Starlink is a unit of Musk-led rocket company SpaceX. The billionaire responded to the account block by calling Moraes a “dictator.”

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Right… We’re done here if you think the US solely controls the low orbit area above other countries and you don’t understand capabilities versus stockpile. This has gotten entirely ridiculous.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Your sovereignty arguments should hold true no matter what sovereign nation we are talking about. Replace “Brazil” with “North Korea”, and they devolve into absurdity: North Korea has no authority to dictate terms to Starlink, and no capacity to stop them. Their sovereignty does not convey them the power or authority to control low earth orbit.

      Brazil firing on a Chinese satellite would be an act of war against China. Brazil firing on a Starlink satellite would be an act of war against the US, even if that satellite were in Brazil’s sovereign borders at the time. Whether the US would respond to such aggression is an open question, but I doubt they would be interested in finding out.

      Brazil has no direct, forceful route to compel Starlink to comply with the order. Their only real option is diplomacy.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s not how that works, you can’t just jam a commercial ship into a country and blow raspberries at them while you break all of their laws. That’s the entire point of sovereignty. And sovereignty isn’t dependent on might. So while N Korea objecting to stuff is funny, it’s still their right.

        Likewise private American satellites do not enjoy any protection outside of the US.

        Simply declaring any American’s property as protected by the military is both incredibly naive and self centered. Americans and their property get seized all the time by foreign countries. And the State Department helps them get a local lawyer.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s not how that works, you can’t just jam a commercial ship into a country and blow raspberries at them

          If you want to use a commercial ship in your analogy, you’re going to have to place it in international waters, 200 miles off the coast. Brazil does not control a commercial ship in international waters; Brazil does not control a satellite passing overhead. Attacking either is, indeed, an act of war.

          Sending and receiving radio communications with Brazil or North Korea is not an act of war. If Brazil has a problem with that, they can make it a diplomatic issue.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            No. It’s really not. And yes, the Navy can come get your ship. The OG pirate radio station got taken into port for not paying it’s bills.

            Your definition of an act of war would mean every American citizen, plane, and ship, carried a presumption of military action with them wherever they go. And they just don’t. It can rise to an act of war but that takes something truly stupid like torpedoing cruise liners, Or attempting to block all trade through the Suez Canal. Seeing as how there’s space and no civilians in the line of fire, Brazil might get a call from the state department but that’s all.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Your definition of an act of war would mean every American citizen, plane, and ship, carried a presumption of military action with them wherever they go

              No. Not “wherever” they go. Pay very close attention: Brazil controls only it’s own territory.

              An American going into Brazilian territory is expected and required to obey Brazilian laws. An American in international waters is not expected or required to obey Brazilian law just because a Brazilian warship shows up and threatens to sink them. A Brazilian naval vessel attempting to sink an American commercial ship in international waters is committing an act of war. And you damn well better believe there will be a military response to such an act. Don’t touch our boats.

              Starlink is not operating in Brazilian territory. They are operating over Brazilian territory. Downing a foreign spacecraft is an act of war; beaming a radio signal carrying the internet into a nation that doesn’t want it is simply not.

              Brazil can go after it’s citizens for using Starlink, but it can’t go after Starlink itself.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s a nice fantasy but no. You can’t sit in international waters while operating inside a national area and be immune to their laws. This isn’t a playground and they aren’t 10 year olds yelling, “I’m not touching you.”

                Again we know this because ships have absolutely been detained, raided, and sunk in international waters. You cannot just commit crimes and expect a lack of jurisdiction to protect you.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  can’t sit in international waters while operating inside a national area

                  You can’t do that for the same reason you can’t sit in a corner of the oval office. It’s a contradiction of terms. An oxymoronic proposition.

                  Starlink isn’t operating inside a national area. Low earth orbit is not a national area.

                  Yes, ships have been sunk in international waters by national governments. Those are acts of war.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Sigh. I’m done here, again. You’ve again just settled into repeating something ridiculous. Americans and their property don’t have some special protection just for being American. If you want to pretend everything is an act of war and it’s impossible to operate at a distance you can do so elsewhere with someone else.