this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
135 points (98.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6623 readers
49 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13231676

A U.S. Navy chief who wanted the internet so she and other enlisted officers could scroll social media, check sports scores and watch movies while deployed had an unauthorized Starlink satellite dish installed on a warship and lied to her commanding officer to keep it secret, according to investigators.

Internet access is restricted while a ship is underway to maintain bandwidth for military operations and to protect against cybersecurity threats.

The Navy quietly relieved Grisel Marrero, a command senior chief of the littoral combat ship USS Manchester, in August or September 2023, and released information on parts of the investigation this week.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] seang96@spgrn.com 42 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Its not even that IMO this does two very bad things

  1. Anyone that has access to starlink can track their vessel.
  2. Nearby enemy vessels could easily have pin pointed them through the signals being transmitted.

She endagered her crew and lied about it.

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yea, that would be pretty damning overall and they should lead with that instead of some jabberwocky about bandwidth.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

It's to explain why she did it.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Anyone that has access to starlink can track their vessel.

Regarding tracking -- and I don't know if that's the main concern here -- it won't just be the Starlink transport itself. My guess is that they're more worried about having devices connected to the Internet.

Let's say that I have a smartphone. I download an app because it's got a fun game attached. It comes up with some dialog about permissions when I installed it, which I promptly accept and forget about. This includes location permission. A month later, I get deployed, and I put my phone on the Wifi network that the nice ship IT person has set up that we all chipped in for. Yay!

So now, every now and then, maybe that app is phoning home and reporting my location using the GPS sensors in the phone. Now, maybe that game company is on the up-and-up. Maybe they're selling data to some data broker. Maybe they're in a country subject to legal requirements to turn over data to the government on demand. Maybe they're securing their own systems to a level sufficient to keep out nation-state level intelligence agencies, and maybe they aren't.

But my guess is that the Navy doesn't want to deal with those possibilities.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 8 points 2 months ago

And that's even before potential for things like microphone permissions for a device that's on a warship.