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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Strawman. Never claimed they did. Everything I said is valid for any person of any nationality. Shooting down a Chinese satellite is an act of war against China. Shooting down one of Brazil’s dozen satellites is an act of war against Brazil, even if it is over the United States at the time.
Brazil does not have any authority to shoot down any satellites but it’s own. To do so is an act of war.
Operating at a distance is, indeed, possible, but at a distance, legal compliance is not obligatory. Starlink doesn’t have to follow Brazil’s laws any more than it does North Korea’s. Brazil can take legal action against its citizens if it prohibits them from using Starlink services. But it can’t take action against Starlink itself, except through diplomatic channels or with Starlink’s consent, because Starlink is not operating within Brazilian jurisdiction.
I don’t know why you keep insisting that a company operating outside of Brazil needs to follow Brazilian law. Brazilian customers of that company need to follow Brazilian law, but the company is not obligated, regardless of what Brazil thinks about it.
Same thing with the GDPR. Yeah, they’ll fine the European division of a company based on the company’s worldwide revenue, but if the company has no European division to fine, European regulators can piss up a rope, regardless of whether the company is based in the US or Brazil.