Comment by fasterik

5 days ago

I think the point would be that it's the private company's responsibility to provide a minimum level of security, even if their job is just for deterrence, documentation, and notifying police in a timely manner. Even if it's mostly "theatre" it still serves a purpose.

Even more in this case: The business Starlink is operating is classified as critical infrastructure (in both EU and US)

As providers in the business of critical infrastructure they need to comply to the HIGHEST physical and digital security requirements, which includes taking preventive measures against acts of terrorism.

Not much is known about this case yet though, it's possible that their preventive procedures failed but their resilience procedures worked (was Starlink down?), and they reported the incident in compliance to EU CER and NIS2.

Either way, I'm sure they'll get an audit for EU CER compliance now, which will create a list of mandated immediate actions...

  • Is deployment of surface-to-air missiles, flak cannons, Gatling guns, and anti-air radars going to become a standard requirement? Unfortunately, Starlink can't go the easy route and just dig itself 100ft underground, they need satellite comms.

    • Let's not exaggerate. Two persons apparently entered Starlink's premises and put their equipment on fire.

      It doesn't take a gatling gun to prevent that, basic physical security and stronger incident-handling will suffice.

      2 replies →

    • The responsibility to do their best to protect is still with the owner, it doesn't mean they must succeed at any cost. They must only do their best. Did they do their best?

      I read the statement as the government introduced additional security measures "even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners". These measures weren't "surface-to-air missiles, flak cannons, Gatling guns, and anti-air radars". Clearly more could have been done before digging into the bag of silly options. The owners just didn't do it.

      There's a fine line between hyperbola to make a point, and hyperbola as a silly attempt to blur the issue. You comment is on the wrong side.