><i>"Bulgarian Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev told parliament that additional security measures had been introduced at similar facilities, even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners."</i><p>It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors. If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is. I understand that railways in some countries have their own police, but it is my understanding that SpaceX has not been granted such powers in any country.
Demerdzhiev, Radev and their entire cabinet in general just avoid blaming Russia for some “unknown” reason as a blanket policy. Yesterday, Russia bombed two Ukrainian ships super close to Bulgaria’s waters in the Black Sea, 11 civilians died, and the PM still says we can’t make any conclusions about the perpetrators when questioned in parliament today.<p>I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.
They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone. Yes yes logic says it must be Russia but we need concrete evidence, so unfortunate.<p>Ukraine responds to Russian attacks? Why Ukraine doesn’t want peace! Why Ukraine doesn’t just capitulate? The coalition of war(he means countries who support Ukraine militarily) is causing so much suffering.<p>The pro-Russian folks are insufferable.
Bit of one, bit of the other.<p>If I open something like a stadium, and whenever there's a big game I need a load of security to deal with traffic, drunk fans, and fights - arguably most of the security should be paid for from ticket sales, rather than the taxpayer, although the taxpayer should be there as the final backstop.<p>Likewise, if I have a bank with a vault full of valuables and I think it needs 3 armed guards present 24/7 - probably that's going to be at my expense, not that of the taxpayer. Although any bank should get a police presence in a reasonably timely manner, once they raise the alarm about a robbery.
most of what police do is after the fact. you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere.
><i>"you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere."</i><p>Maybe Bulgaria differs from most countries, but security guards seem to be mostly theatre. Private actors are generally very limited in what they can do to secure property, and they're usually required to basically call the police and hope the police show up in time to do something, which is often unlikely in either the countryside or industrial areas.
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)<p>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.<p>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.<p>Either way, I'm sure they'll get an audit for EU CER compliance now, which will create a list of mandated immediate actions...
In Bulgaria the security guards used to be just protection rackets. Then EU happened and the country normalized but even the previous prime minister used to be a bodyguard.<p>When those people aren’t around Bulgaria is incredibly peaceful country.
Security, physical or software is multi-tiered.<p>You install gates, raise walls, limit access, hire personnel, etc.<p>The more you need to secure whatever it is, the more layers you have.<p>In general, any respectable warehouse would have an external wall with a single entrance to the parking, and then a second entrance to the building itself.
It really depends on the site being secured and who's acting as a guard. Try to storm a major US airbase and you'll learn very quickly that not all guards are created equal. Do the same as your local strip mall and yeah... that guy is only there to break up fights between kids and call the cops.
<i>>most of what police do is after the fact.</i><p>This. Police are just the clean-up crew who come 20 minutes after, and fill in the paperwork proving that something bad did indeed happen to you, that you can then use for your lawsuit or insurance claim, nothing more.<p>Unless you're a politician or the billionaire owner of an island, they're not gonna do much more to actually prevent or solve your problem.
security guards vs FSB.<p>uh huh
The people who started the fire are not going to be FSB employees, they're useful idiots that got paid for some vandalism who won't even know who hired them. Plausible deniability.
Why would the FSB care? Tthe recent limitations on SpaceX in the Ukraine are to Russia's benefit, not Ukraine's.
[dead]
I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson. It sounds much more absurd to me.<p>Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.<p>--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?<p>--<p>Edit, as I expected this to be much more widely known: If you are operating in the business of critical infrastructure (for which Starlink qualifies, explicitly "digital infrastructure"), you have obligations to protect your facilities against physical and cyber attacks and have resilience and business continuity processes in place.<p>If you decide to operate in a business segment for critical infrastructure, it is <i>not</i> the governments job to secure your business, <i>YOU</i> have to comply to the requirements of operating in this field, and the government can audit and shut down your business if you're not in compliance.<p>In the EU, where this incident took place, this is well-defined under the CER-directive, and further extended for IT under NIS2 and CRE.<p>In the US, it's covered by CISA and CIRCIA (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act)
Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity.<p>Most of those could be easily targeted and taken out by a large organized group but people are generally good and dont do that. If a country's military attacked though you wouldn't blame the water company for someone cutting the locks and destroying the water pumps. Or blowing up an electric facility.<p>Its not like this is just some random companies headquarters where they have some vehicles and someone broke the gates to spray paint the trucks.<p>This is an attack on the people of the country as a whole. The attackers are not vandalizing the internet because they dislike starlink they are attacking its people by destroying infrastructure. there is a major difference between the two.
> <i>"Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity."</i><p>Yep, the EU classifies this as "critical infrastructure". Operators of such services (including water, electricity and digital infrastructure) have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes<p>I agree that the government should step up on against the military adversary on a country/regional level, but even then it is not their job to step in and do the job of Starlink as a provider of critical digital infrastructure.<p>A player in these markets has an obligation to secure his own facilities, otherwise every new market-entrant can undercut all competitors by not investing in security at all, until it's big enough to become a national risk and the government steps in to secure its business.
Depends on the infra, and the level of anxiety generally and specifically.<p>Petty vandalism no, but I’ve worked at a few and know more completely non-military business premises that absolutely have “military barricade” or the like quietly in their contingency plans.<p>Funny thing is, a bit of arson is kind of normal on their estates. But usually it’s just stolen cars.
The EU already classifies digital services like those provided by Starlink as "critical infrastructure".<p>Operators of such services have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes. This is the duty of every player in this business.<p>The government has a job to stand up against a potential adversary of the country (be it other countries or local terrorists), and in case of an attack on critical infrastructure the government will also step in to protect it, I agree on that.<p>But it doesn't have the job to take over Starlink's (or whoever's) business operations and make it secure. That is the job of the company, long before it even appears on any map of a potential adversary...
How is a tax-paying corporation different from a tax-paying person?<p>It's in the core interest of any government to protect its citizens, including corporate ones.
Both need to act in compliance with local laws and mandates, it's not the job of the government to fill the gaps.<p>Corporations have more duties of different scale than individuals.<p>Starlink is a provider of Digital Infrastructure, and is already classified as "Essential Entity" under the EU CER-directive.<p>As such, it needs to comply with so-called "Physical-Cyber Convergence Requirements", which entails<p>1. Perimeter and Access Defense<p>2. All-Hazards Mitigation: Designing infrastructure to resist natural disasters, severe climate changes, or physical sabotage/terrorism.<p>3. Vetted Personnel: Utilizing mandatory background checks and security clearances for operators working in sensitive zones<p>Not much is known about this incident at this stage, and I'm sure the government will conduct own investigations. But regardless of the outcome, it will be the duty of Starlink to secure its facilities.
It's the government's job to protect both individuals and corporations against foreign attack. It's even the government's job to protect against crime.
> <i>"It's even the government's job to protect against crime"</i><p>It's the government's job to protect against crime, but the duty of an individual to take proactive measures against becoming a victim of crime ("Individual Responsibility").<p>--> They won't put a policeman in front of my house just because I decided to not have a door on my house.<p>-<p>Equally, (and MUCH more explicitly), it's the legal duty of corporations to protect themsselves against crime, <i>especially</i> if they provide critical infrastructure.<p>--> They won't put police all over my facilities just because I didn't invest in access-control.<p>--> In this case, I am not in compliance with the law and considered to <i>invite(!)</i> crime
It's both/and, not either/or. Yes, I have individual responsibility to have a door on my house, and to be careful about walking in sketchy places. <i>And</i> the government has a responsibility to combat crime. Both.<p>A critical infrastructure company has an obligation to keep their facilities secure. <i>And</i> the government has a responsibility to prevent attacks by foreign actors on critical infrastructure.
This is not how this works, corporations are not people.<p>As a provider for digital infrastructure, Starlink is required to comply with the EU Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive, which mandates strict physical and digital security as well as business continuity in case of crisis.<p>The nature of this incident indicates a security issue on the site of Starlink, which is <i>their</i> duty, not the governments.<p>They may have not been in compliance with this directive, which puts local infrastructure and citizens and risk.
>I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson.<p>because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis, and instead of responding accordingly we talk about this as if a drunk kid laid a fire somewhere
> <i>"because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis"</i><p>Agree, the government should step in and (finally!!) take actions against those foreign adversaries.<p>But this doesn't change the fact that it is not the governments role to protect the facilities of a infrastructure provider against sabotage (or even acts of terror), a company providing such services in the EU has to comply to the CER directive and secure its operations.<p>There is a very basic reason for that: I could undercut every provider on the market by <i>not</i> investing in security and resilience. while everything works well I will beat all my established competitors and gain a significant share of the market.<p>This creates a risk of critical infrastructure stability for the citizens of that country. So if inevitable issues in resilience arise.....I demand the government to step in and take over my operations...?
Not that different, perhaps, from Russia making businesses responsible for defending their sites against drones. Even threatening to nationalize the businesses that fail to establish adequate defenses. How a business can get ahold of military-grade anti-air defense systems is left mostly unanswered.
> <i>"It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors"</i><p>I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)<p>Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical <i>"Privatize profits, socialize costs"</i> view...
> federal agencies<p>It's cute when Americans assume every country's constitution is the same as their own.
You don't need any special power to hire security at your plant or warehouse.
Starlink sites are <i>mostly</i> at dwdm regen hut sites, which as a general industry baseline have a remarkably low level of security.
<i>>If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is.</i><p>It's the Balkans mate. You pay next to no taxes, and so you also get next to no services back from the government.<p>The Police, education, healthcare, courts, etc. that exist, is just a skeleton crew in minimum load bearing role, not to actually solve your problem when you need it. For that you gotta pay private and costs extra.
As a Balkanian I vouch for this. Even what little you pay as taxes gets embezzled and you are always on your own.
Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation? Especially if that corporation is involved in a war they don't care which makes it a legitimate military target.
<i>>Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation?</i><p>Because foreign corporations operating in the Balkans pay taxes in the balkans, own property/real estate on Balkan soil on which their business operates, and employ workers in the balkans.
Bulgaria is not a war party, Starlink is. Whatever taxes they pay, it doesn't cover special military protection or war involvement, just regular protection from theft, trespass and similar, like any other company not involved in war.
<i>>Bulgaria is not a war party, Starlink is [...] it doesn't cover special military protection or war involvement</i><p>Huh? So by your logic, if Russian soldiers in fatigues are shooting up a Ukrainian Roshen candy shop in Sofia Bulgaria, it's no the job of the Bulgarian state to intervene and fire back at those Russian soldiers on Bulgarian soil or arrest them, because according to you it's just a war dispute between Russia and Ukraine that doesn't concern Bulgaria and it's government law enforcement?<p>In the end it'll be up to the courts to decide if the incident on Starlink is an act of war not covered by insurance and law enforcement, or vandalism that falls under the responsibility of the Bulgarian state law enforcement, but you're logic is pure comedic FUBAR.
A more appropriate comparison would be if Russian agents assassinated a local industrialist.<p>And, well, would you expect the state to proactively assign military protection details to such people?<p>No. They would have their own body guards, and maybe a police protection if needed. But not army.<p>The spy and counterspy agency would probably investigate, but they are not going to post a flak cannon next to each Starlink base station.
> if Russian agents assassinated a local industrialist<p>Funny you mention that - Russia has tried at least once going back as far as 2024[1]. State security services intervened.<p>> US intelligence discovered earlier this year that the Russian government planned to assassinate the chief executive of a powerful German arms manufacturer that has been producing artillery shells and military vehicles for Ukraine, according to five US and western officials familiar with the episode.<p>> When the Americans learned of the effort, they informed Germany, whose security services were then able to protect Papperger and foil the plot. A high-level German government official confirmed that Berlin was warned about the plot by the US.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/us-germany-foiled-russian-assassination-plot" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/us-germany-foiled-ru...</a>
Because that foreign corporation presumedly purchased the local property, pays local taxes on it, and probably employs some local people. Or are you claiming that the property of anyone foreign anywhere is up for grabs because they're foreign?
In many countries, foreigners are not even allowed to buy property in the first place.<p>It’s not exactly uncommon or inconceivable that yes, the property of foreigners doesn’t quite get the same protections.
You're seriously asking why the state would enforce property rights?
> It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors.<p>SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars picking whichever side they choose to support on which day. They made their bed.
> SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars<p>Starlink is banned, by the US government, from operating in a military context, and cannot be used for military purposes. Do you have a reference/examples for them meddling/supporting wars, or a hint at what you're referring to for someone out of the loop? This is not allowed by very many laws and policies that have been in place since the company started operating.<p>I suspect you're making a logical leap that them stopping means they're now supporting some opposition?
This makes sense if you completely ignore the existence of american law.
Which American law has forced Starlink to introduce the brand new restrictions on Ukraine's use in the last day?
In the most corrupt administration of all time, American law doesnt really get considered at these levels. There are many things Musk and his companies should legally not be doing but not much really happening there. Especially after DOGE killed most the groups looking into these things and the AG is run by Trumps personal attorneys.
> If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies,<p>... it means those properties are own sovereign nations, or at least autonomous zones! woo hoo, time to declare independence of People's Republic of Mars.
When you start acting militarily, secure your own shit militarily.
Most railways aren’t owned by fascist financiers. Probably.
Local here. The new prime minister is a spineless russian rag and everyone around him is from the former communist party. You won't find in them anything approaching self-respect or actual will desire to defend against any russian provocation.
[dead]
It's private property, is it not? I don't see why taxpayers should be on the hook for everything, unless they get a return on their investment.<p>Nationalize the infrastructure if it's that important to the public.
It's probably just politics, he needs someone to point the finger at.
It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...<p>So to prevent a sabotage is to have several layers of security (i.e multiple fences) so you will force the saboteur to commit minor crimes like trespassing first and also slow the saboteur significantly so you can arrest him for these minor crimes.
> It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...<p>You can very well arrest someone for the intention of sabotaging.
> You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed.<p>Sure you can. We convict people of conspiracy all the time.<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/overt_act" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/overt_act</a>
Drones do not care about fences.