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.

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.

When those people aren’t around Bulgaria is incredibly peaceful country.

Security, physical or software is multi-tiered.

You install gates, raise walls, limit access, hire personnel, etc.

The more you need to secure whatever it is, the more layers you have.

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.

In this case they even might come in and check if you didn't take sufficient actions to prevent this bad event.

An individual will be informed how not having a lock on the door was a failure in individual responsibility to prevent harm against yourself/others.

But an operator of digital infrastructure might get audited for compliance of the critical infrastructure directive/act. In the EU fines for such violations can be as high as €10 million or 2% of global turnover.

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.

> "Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity."

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

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.

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.

Both need to act in compliance with local laws and mandates, it's not the job of the government to fill the gaps.

Corporations have more duties of different scale than individuals.

Starlink is a provider of Digital Infrastructure, and is already classified as "Essential Entity" under the EU CER-directive.

As such, it needs to comply with so-called "Physical-Cyber Convergence Requirements", which entails

1. Perimeter and Access Defense

2. All-Hazards Mitigation: Designing infrastructure to resist natural disasters, severe climate changes, or physical sabotage/terrorism.

3. Vetted Personnel: Utilizing mandatory background checks and security clearances for operators working in sensitive zones

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.

The EU already classifies digital services like those provided by Starlink as "critical infrastructure".

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.

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.

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...

> "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"

Agree, the government should step in and (finally!!) take actions against those foreign adversaries.

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.

There is a very basic reason for that: I could undercut every provider on the market by not investing in security and resilience. while everything works well I will beat all my established competitors and gain a significant share of the market.

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...?

> "It's even the government's job to protect against crime"

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").

--> They won't put a policeman in front of my house just because I decided to not have a door on my house.

-

Equally, (and MUCH more explicitly), it's the legal duty of corporations to protect themsselves against crime, especially if they provide critical infrastructure.

--> They won't put police all over my facilities just because I didn't invest in access-control.

--> In this case, I am not in compliance with the law and considered to invite(!) crime

This is not how this works, corporations are not people.

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.

The nature of this incident indicates a security issue on the site of Starlink, which is their duty, not the governments.

They may have not been in compliance with this directive, which puts local infrastructure and citizens and risk.

On the upside, there is little that surprises you and you thrive in any environment. Balkans FTW.

>Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation?

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.

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?

You're seriously asking why the state would enforce property rights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...

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.

I pay taxes too. I don’t have a policeman stationed outside my home.

So you agree "taxpayers should be on the hook for everything"?

Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?

Sounds like socialism.

Should SpaceX conduct the investigation to prove he had the intention of sabotaging? Ffs

Arresting all the people who happen to walk past a strategic object will fill up your prisons very quickly.