“Spying” looks like editorial click bait. It isn’t even mentioned in the article. The concern I think is domestic use to commit genocide against their own people.
> “We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that,” one of the officials, a manager of the project, told Reuters, asking not to be identified.
I dare you to find a quote by anyone familiar with the satellite citing military use.
He said it right there. If it has no possible military use, why did he even mention the military?
Nice bit of goal post rearrangement there, given an explicit direct quote in the article stating the satellite could have military applications. On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
>He said it right there. If it has no possible military use, why did he even mention the military?
How do you get "the satellite could have military applications" from "The satellite was not designed for that"?
>On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
You mean aside from "We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that"? Why do you think the HRW has any capability to assess the possible applications of a satellite? Nothing on the HRW website either...
Yes, use by the military to continue committing genocide against their own people. “Spying” in geopolitical context usually means use against other countries.
