upvote
International space law (starting with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967) says that nations are responsible for all spacecraft they launch, no matter whether the government or a non-governmental group launches them. So a server farm launched by a Danish company is governed by Danish law just the same as if they were on the ground- and exposed to the same ability to put someone into jail if they don't comply with a legal warrant etc.

This is true even if your company moves the actual launching to, say, a platform in international waters- you (either a corporation or an individual) are still regulated by your home country, and that country is responsible for your actions and has full enforcement rights over you. There is no area beyond legal control, space is not a magic "free from the government" area.

reply
While that's all true, it does hilariously increase the difficulty for the government showing up and seizing your server hardware...
reply
They don't need to do that if they go after your ground station operators.

To escape the law you need to hide or protect something on earth (your ground station(s), downlinks). If you can hide or protect that infrastructure on earth, why bother putting the computers in space?

reply
deleted
reply
Because you need an enormous amount of energy to run the servers. You may hide the downlinks but you still need power.
reply
I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.
reply
> I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.

Who said that Starcloud's business model is about commercial services? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397026 I rather speculate that Starcloud's business model is about getting big money defense contracts.

reply
Yeah exactly. We’re riffing on how implausible that is, right?
reply
deleted
reply
ASAT missiles have existed since the 80s and multiple countries have demonstrated the capability to destroy something in space.

Meanwhile, you, the actual human being the government wants to coerce, are still on the earth, where someone can grab you and beat you with a wrench

reply
Maybe not so much... they'll just grab you. Obligatory XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/538/

Unless you go up there with it and a literal lifetime supply? Although I guess if you don't take much it's still a lifetime supply...

reply
What if you’re a stateless person? (Not an easy status to acquire these days, but any US citizen can just renounce their citizenship without getting a new one, for example.)
reply
What if you just launch it in secret and don't tell anybody?
reply
Being stateless has an end result of "literally anyone can fuck with you" more than "no one can fuck with you".
reply
nations are responsible for all spacecraft they launch, no matter whether the government or a non-governmental group launches them.

Nations come and go. In my lifetime, the world map has changed dozens of times. Incorporate in a country that doesn't look like it's going to be around very long. More than likely, the people running it will be happy to take your money.

reply
Generally though, countries don’t disappear: they have a predecessor and a successor.
reply
A successor may take possession of the land, but that doesn't mean it will also take responsibility for the previous government's liabilities.
reply
That is why international treaties come with implicit or explicit enforcement options
reply
That is not how international law works, you don't get to say "we are a new country and therefore not bound by treaties that earlier forms did."

This principle was established when Nazis were convicted for war crimes at Nuremburg for violating treaties that their predecessor state the Weimar Republic signed, even after the Nazi's repudiated those treaties and claimed they were signed by an illegitimate state, and that they were a new Reich, not like the Wiemar Republic.

Basically if territory changes hand to an existing state that state will obviously still have obligations, and if a new state is formed, then generally it is assumed to still carry the obligations of the previous state. There is no "one weird trick" to avoid international law. I assure you that the diplomats and lawyers 80 years ago thought of these possibilities. They saw what resulted from the Soviet and Nazi mutual POW slaughters, and set up international law so no one could ignore it.

reply
Those kinds of countries don't tend to be the kinds of countries with active space programs.

And more critically - they have successor states.

The Russian Federation is treated as the successor to the USSR in most cases (much to the chagrin of the rest of the CIS) and Serbia is treated as the successor to Yugoslavia (much to the chagrin of the rest)

reply
:-) I appreciate your snark and the ad campaign reference.

But if international waters isn't enough (and much cheaper) then I don't think space will either. Man's imagination for legal control knows no bounds.

You wait (maybe not, it's a long wait...), if humankind ever does get out to the stars, the legal claims of the major nations on the universe will have preceded them.

reply
The 'Principality of Sealand', anywhere else on the high seas or Antarctica have their issues with practicality too, but considerably less likelihood of background radiation flipping bits...
reply
Unless the company blasts its HQ and all its employees into space, no, they are very much subject to the jurisdiction of the countries they operate in. The physical location of the data center is irrelevant.
reply
Exactly. Government entities have a funny habit of making their own decisions about what (and who) is and is not subject to their jurisdiction.
reply
[Mild spoilers for _Critical Mass_ by Daniel Suarez below]

> Servers outside any legal jurisdiction

Others have weighed in on the accuracy of this, with a couple pointing out that the people are still on the ground. There's a thread in _Critical Mass_ by Daniel Suarez that winds up dealing with this issue in a complex set of overlapping ways.

Pretty good stuff, I don't think the book will be as good as the prior book in the series. (I'm only about halfway through.)

reply
I know there's the fantasy of orbital CSAM storage able to beam obscenity to any point on the ground with zero accountability, but that is not going to survive real world politics.
reply
Given that most of the major powers have satellite shootdown ability this isn't worth all that much if you're causing enough trouble.
reply
Shooting down a satellite is a major step that creates a mess of space junk, angering everybody.

Plus you can just have a couple of politicians from each major power park their money on that satellite.

reply
>Shooting down a satellite is a major step that creates a mess of space junk, angering everybody.

unless everybody is angry at satellite in which case it is a price everybody is even eager to pay.

>Plus you can just have a couple of politicians from each major power park their money on that satellite.

I've long had the idea that there are fashions in corruption and a point at which to be corrupt just becomes too gauche and most politicians go back to being honest.

This explains the highly variant history of extreme corruption in democracies.

At any rate while the idea that the cure for any government interference is to be sufficiently corrupt sounds foolproof in theory I'm not sure it actually works out.

If I was a major politician and you had my competitors park their money on your satellite it would become interesting for me to get rid of it. Indeed if you had me and my competitors on the satellite I might start thinking how do I conceal getting my money out of here and then wait for best moment to ram measure through to blow up satellite.

reply
By that logic, politicians around the world would make it illegal for themselves to trade stock on their insider knowledge. I'm not holding my breath.

See: https://unusualwhales.com/politics. Some of these politicians on both sides are very good and consistent stock pickers indeed.

reply
huh?..

I'm sorry but what logic is it you're referring to here? Is it the idea that there are fashions in corruption? If so by that logic we are probably in an era of high corruption.

Is it the idea that if I were a corrupt politician and I had equally corrupt enemies I would use my knowledge of their corruption to dirty trick them? Because ... dirty tricking them and getting them to lose all their finance at one time is not quite the same as passing a law making it difficult for everyone to get more finance from hereon out.

I'm not following exactly what logic of mine you think you've defeated with observing that there are a lot of corrupt politicians nowadays?

reply
Who would be willing to provide connectivity to servers that are exploiting being outside legal jurisdiction for some kind of value?
reply
Dozens upon dozens of illicit shady bulletproof hosting providers.

2026, we will get ransomware from space!

The RaaS groups have hundreds of millions of dollars so in theory they actually could get something like that setup if they wanted.

reply
> 2026, we will get ransomware from space!

Ahem, cloud ransomware.

reply
Anyone with a ground station aimed at the datacenter satellite.
reply
Would be cheaper to do in international waters, even if you needed security to protect it.
reply
Pretty worthless unless the execs live in space too.
reply
Why? Its not like we put execs in jail for allowing their companies to do terrible things under their watch.
reply