Well, the Starlink could be connected by an admin to a computer that is connected to SIPRNet, right? It exposes itself as just a router.
I mean, assuming the Starlink was brought on board by someone with authorization to be on board, any possible adversarial situation would necessarily be an internal issue to begin with.
Personally, I think the most likely answer involves an Xbox.
Until we can finally kill HSP/HFP, I’m never gonna be happy with Bluetooth. Using a headset mic shouldn’t blast you back to the telephone era.
You can’t connect a star link to siprnet.
Can you connect a computer? Because if so, that same computer can then be connected to the starlink, no?
I know absolutely nothing about secure government networking, I’m just kind of assuming that something has to be able to connect to both individually and also simultaneously.
I’m a self-taught C# dev, I’ve found tremendous success specifically just describing what I want to do in dumb language that I’d feel stupid asking people IRL about and that aren’t googleable without knowing what both the terms “null-coalescing” and “non-merchandise supergroup” are describing.
There are a lot of patterns that don’t have obvious names and that aren’t easily described without describing a specific scenario in a way that might only make sense institutionally, or with additional context that your average person might not have. ChatGPT is fairly good at being the “buddy that you have a bunch of in-jokes with that can remember things better than you”. I can skip a lot of explaining why I need to do a thing a certain way like I can with my coworkers (who all aren’t programmers), and I can get helpful answers for programming questions that my coworkers don’t know the answers to.
It’s frustrating to see this incredibly advanced context-aware autocorrect on steroids get used in ways that don’t acknowledge the inherent strengths of what LLMs are actually great at doing. It’s infuriating to have that potential be actively misused and packaged as a service and have that mediocre service sold to you once a month as a necessity by idiots in suits watching a line on a chart.
I am no longer interested in continuing a conversation with you, as you’ve convinced me that you’re not interested in engaging with what I am saying. Thank you for your time and perspective to this point.
You are misunderstanding me.
I am not disagreeing with you, but it’s intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge the context of the reality we live in: it used to require genuine talent and skill to use a paid tool to fake images, and now is as easy as entering text on your phone in a free app just describing what you want to see.
This is an exponential escalation of existing problems and technologies.
I never said I was just now worried about fake images. To say it myself: I’m worried about the now non-existent barrier that bad actors no longer need to clear to do whatever they want to do here.
You said “but” like it invalidated what I said, instead of being a true statement and a non sequitur.
You aren’t wrong, and I don’t think that changes what I said either.
Photoshop requires time and talent to make a believable image.
This requires neither.
I strongly doubt they’re communicating through honks to each other, it sounds like a safety feature that needs tuning to me.
It’s the Handset Protocol/Handsfree Protocol that was developed for simultaneous sending and receiving of voice data. They’re the only protocols that support sending and receiving voice at the same time, and they do that by sending mono telephone quality audio and receiving mono telephone quality audio.
It’s why most gaming headsets, even ones with Bluetooth, include a small RF dongle separately. Bluetooth is technically incapable of high-quality audio when recording.