Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Hundreds of fishing vessels vanishing along Argentina’s waters (oceana.org)
1210 points by belter 17 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 592 comments

Enrique Piñeyro flew his personal 787-8 (!) over the area and uploaded this video:


ADS-B track: https://i.imgur.com/1wxAkK2.jpg

"Last night we flew at 5000 feet over the foreign fishing fleet that preys on our seas, causing ecological disasters. They weren't at mile 201, they were well in our territorial waters."

(courtesy /r/aviation and gTranslate)

Didn’t know who this was, so I looked him up. Who has a personal 787? Turns out he’s an Argentine actor and film magnate who is an ex-commercial pilot. I guess that’s one way to come to own your own ~$122m aircraft.

That reminds me of the Iron Maiden 747, piloted by their singer:


I'm not a fan of Iron Maiden's music but from all I read they sound like absolute top blokes. They also licensed "Eddie" to Robinsons Brewery, a smallish company based in Stockport, to produce their "Trooper" beer - which is actually pretty fine.

Spent some time in Brimingham. Worked crazy hours, but would wander at night.

Local beer was a little rare in the places around our hotel (probably because we were near Broad Street), but they had "Trooper" at Malt House. It was actually really great.

That may also be influenced by the fact that I mostly only could get foreign light lagers everywhere else, and Malt House was a great place to relax on the canal a little away from the Hen Party craziness.

The owners of the now defunct Fry's Electronics also owned the Arena Football team the San Jose SaberCats and additionally owned/leased/rented/sponsored various aircraft including a 747 SP.

1968 GULFSTREAM G1159B N24YS (still owned by the Fry family)

1976 ROCKWELL NA-265-60 N607CF (now owned by an airshow)

1955 PIPER PA-23 N3494B (owned by someone else)

1971 GULFSTREAM G1159B N44YS (still owned by the Fry family)

1976 ROCKWELL NA-265-60 N39CB (now owned by an airshow)

1977 DEHAVILLAND CANADA DHC-6-300 N814BC (still owned by the Fry family)

1978 BOEING 727-281(A)(RE) N724YS (now registered to a UK blind trust)

1980 BOEING 747SP-27 N747A (now owned by NASA)

1981 ROCKWELL NA-265-65 N88BF (still owned by the Fry family)

1981 ROCKWELL NA-265-65 N654YS (still owned by the Fry family)

1992 BEECH B300 N4YS (still owned by the Fry family)

2011 GULFSTREAM G280 N38GL (now owned by a casino corporation)

Wow this reminded me, I saw the fry's 747 at an airshow. I was pretty young at the time, but it was crazy seeing a 747 fly so low.


I thought the camera was distorted as hell until I realized that no, the 747SP is just... super stumpy hahaha.

That is -insane- low for a craft like that.

Fry is defunct? That's so sad!

I bought a number of things there on a few trips I made to Cali back in... 2013! Well, that explains it.


Edit: Yes, the electronics store chain and not just the grocery store that was at Kooser and Camden many, many years.

Yeah! Bruce Dickinson is an amazingly talented person. And Iron Maiden is one of the greatest rock bands of all time.

And John Travolta with a 707.

He has donated it to a great aircraft museum in Australia - it should be making its way down this year.

They have spent years getting it back to spec to make the trans-pacfic flight back home

The irony of not being able to the transport the thing that usually transports the things.

Would have been easier to ship by boat, even without dismounting it, since it’s the cheapest transportation. But it seems I’m wrong, since they didn’t do it.

Well, if the aim is to make it fly anyway (not just show on the ground)...

IIRC, he had it parked right up to his house.


Description of property: https://www.aerotime.aero/22859-john-travoltas-house

Photo of house w/ 707 in "car-port" from above article: https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/files/john-travoltas-house-...

403 Forbidden :(

ha - works ok from here

He’s also the nephew of Paolo Rocca, CEO of the Techint conglomerate (steel, mining, oil and gas, etc.) and worth $3.7 billion according to Wikipedia.

A mining & oil tycoon flies his private 787 over some fishing vessels to complain about ecological damage. Pot... Kettle...

A person’s hypocrisy has nothing to do with the validity of the complaints they make. A given complaint is valid/invalid on its own merits and the fact that the person making the complaint is a hypocrite does not invalidate the legitimacy of the complaint.

I fully agree, but I still found it interesting/funny.

I know u jest. fwiw at least he's an Argentine pot; maybe he was saying 'if we're to have ecological disasters in Argentina it should at least benefit Argentines'

One airliner flight is going to do a little less overall environmental damage than 400 illegal fishing trawlers operating every day.

Is he single?

Comlux bought it from Aeromexico in their bankruptcy, but it looks like Piñeyro might be leasing it from Comlux.

His Wikipedia entry reads like he's some sort of MacGyver meets Batman and goes business.

So... Tony Stark?

Pretty much so.

I have to imagine maintenance and storage of a 787 is way worse than the purchase price

According to [1], it costs United about $15,000 an hour to run their 787. Of that, $7,371 finances the plane ("ac cost"), $786 for maintenance ("mx"), $5,259 for fuel, and $1,335 for crew. I'm assuming industry average utilization of roughly ~4000 hours a year of flight time so that works out to about $3 million in maintenance and $28 million in loan repayments per year.

Thing is, you have to keep the 787 flying - they're not designed to be parked for weeks or months at a time. Normally that'd be a problem for a business jet since they're little more than toys for rich people but the 787 is up to 20% more fuel efficient than comparable older models. As long as its set up for cargo, the owner can just rent it out and have someone else cover the majority of the maintenance burden. It wouldn't be profitable, but if you need (or want) a brand new commercial jet, it's an easy way to subsidize that cost.

[1] https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep

Would reply to child but too nested. Maybe it's this one for charter?


Looks pretty cool if I was wealthier and wanted a destination wedding this would be the way!

There is no “too nested”. If it doesn't show a “reply” button, click on the timestamp instead.

thanks i didn't know that! or maybe im just too blind!

I like John Travolta.

I've wondered lately if he is working so much because of his hobbies, or just loves any acting gig?

(I need a life?)

The question then is whether he owns it and farms it out to the airlines or if the airline owns it and rents it to him.

Also interview during the flight here: https://youtu.be/jCCJQjEq4b8 (In Spanish but subtitles will work well for English translation)

He is also a member of the Rocca family, one of the richest families of Argentina. That helps.

> Enrique Piñeyro (born 1956 in Genoa, Italy) is an Argentine-Italian ex air line pilot turned film actor, producer, crash analyst, aeronautical physician, film director, and screenplay writer, working partly in Argentina.

That's quite a career!

John Travolta also has his own 707, which he flies himself.

If you dont have navy then you dont have territorial waters, its that simple.

They have an airforce and Exocet anti ship missiles. They sank British multiple Uk warships during the Falkland wars.

The question is have they replaced/maintained everything since then.

The problem with a lot of navies is that if you refuse to decommission old rust buckets you end up with an navy that looks impressive on paper but rarely makes it out of port and i suspect this is the case for the Argentinian navy.

you don't need dozens of blue water warships to patrol against pirate fishing, you need a few patrol boats and a few long range maritime surveillance planes.

Well, that was 40 years ago. And also, you don't launch Exocet missiles against commercial ships...

No, you race up to them with a gunboat and shoot 2 warnings shots accross the bow. The third one goes into a boat.

Quite standard practice, and very much applicable in situations where these roaming fleets are steeling quota that they have no right to.

They should be arrested. Let the PRC handle their release with a massive press scandal.

This is exactly what the Chinese fishing fleets are counting on.

They won't go away and they WILL take every single living thing from the ocean unless someone steps in.

They sunk Chinese fishing boats before.


Good point. The Navy is by far the most important branch of any military.

This wouldn't be a navy issue. This is illegal fishing, a matter for a coast guard (law enforcement) rather than a navy. The navy guards the sea against other navies. A coast guard arrests criminals.

Very few countries other then the us and Canada actually maintain a blue/green water coast guard i.e. a lot of navies around the world does a lot of law enforcement doing peace time. This is the case for most European nations where almost anything bigger then a launch is classed as a navel vessel and potentially armed.

And then there is the oddities like japan who theoretically do not have an navy but who's cost guard(or self defense force) operate carriers.

The nature of the boats is beside the point. Navy vessels can be used, but they will usually carry law enforcement people. It is like using an army to arrest drug dealers. While it is physically possible, nearly every nation would only deploy military assets "in aid of" local police. Very few nations would tolerate their militaries enforcing local laws, especially when that would mean those militaries also spying on citizens. Police are allowed to do that, not soldiers. By that same token, just as a cop can be aided by a navy destroyer they could be supported by a foreign navy vessel too.

"Police are allowed to do that, not soldiers."

It may be more that police is trained to do that compared to soldiers, as in order to be effective in what they supposed to do, they all should be specialized. And yes, when it comes to fighting drug dealers and all around looks more like a war zone instead of a "misbehaving civilians" affair, then a more appropriate tool use gets warranted.

Well, there is the German Coast Guard.. https://youtu.be/yR0lWICH3rY

China uses armed fishing boats in their giant fishing flotillas.


That is how the US organizes its two navies, but that doesn't means that all countries need to have two different navies - most don't, they just have a coast guard, with enough ships that could cross the ocean to put on a show of having that ability, but in practice those ships stay in port all the time.

Uzbekistan and Liechtenstein might disagree.

and look they don't have coastal waters /s

There’s no home field advantage in war

The US has lost (or not definitively won) every war since WW2, none of which were on home field.

Three examples off the top of my head:

The Korean War technically isn’t over, and since both sides claim they won, you’ll have to pick a winner yourself.

The US military’s extreme prowess in the first Iraq war was the last evidence the Soviets needed that they had lost the Cold War.

The US was able to achieve its goals in Yugoslavia in a straightforward manner.

In all of those cases there is one or more nations with an much stronger claim to victory then the US.

The cold war was an implosion by economics and the vast bulk of the preasure came from western europe who alost harvested nearly all of the victory gains, and that happened years before the first gulf war.

The US Acted as a poorly paid mercenary force for the houses of Said doing the first and second gulf war and the long term strategic goal went in Iran's favor when the US/Saudi backed puppet government of Iraq imploded and someone else had to step in and deal with ISIS(that someone else originally turned out to be Iran's republican guard backed by Russian advisors and hardware).

Kosovo again had Europe playing they leading role in the diplomacy both post and doing the war and harvesting most of the benefits.

Outside of late western Roman empire, i can think of few nations where the army was as impotent in terms of actually backing the diplomatic game or rather where the diplomats where as incompetent that despite having the best trained/funded army no tactical victory was too great to turn into an strategic defeat.

Iraq was concurred in 2 months the 2nd time. That was the war. If the leader of an enemy was hiding in a dirt hole in the ground and then hanged and that isnt a win to you then your definition is wrong. You are confusing nation building with war.

cries in Mongolian

Dammit, and here I am, fresh out of popcorn.

Ironic, since Argentina fought a war with England.

What is their coast guard up to?

I can tell you about one thing that I didn't find mentioned. Argentina's Naval Prefecture is using a product called Galatea Watcher from Ascentio Technologies (they are the main contractor for Argentina's Space Agency and have developed the ground segment and done operations for them). This product does pretty much the same as in the article: it takes satellite imagery from several sources, does image processing and detection on them and cross-references it with AIS reports from vessels and alerts all the suspicious activity. One could see all the ships getting positioned just in the international border and then disappear by night. This is a well known issue.

Disclaimer: I used to work for Ascentio.

So do these satellites only have RGB channels? What about infrared?

IIRC, the resolution on infrared satellite imaging is way lower

They use several sources an different type of imagery, both of public access and private

> IIRC, the resolution on infrared satellite imaging is way lower

I have some buddies that are working on improving this!

Argentina has it's own SARs to do the same.

I will surprise you, even USA has a problem catching all Chinese fishing ships near Hawaii.

There is simply that much of them. Chinese fishing fleet is world's biggest, and they have 1 gigaton a year steel output to make more.

The big question is what can a nation do to stop this? The normal diplomatic and legal avenues don't seem to do much. A ship here and there can be seized but much like fines that are slaps on the wrist for large corporations, there's too much economic value in violating the rules. A seized ship now and then is a small price to pay for access to everyone else's fishing areas. There don't seem to be any good escalation paths that aren't morally unconscionable.

Commandeer the ships and auction them off for scrap at home. Arrest and charge the fishermen.

If they flee, sink the ship.

They’ll catch on.

The crew will likely be desperate and / or slaves.

So how about:

Sell the ship, let the crew live in a nice hotel, book them a 1st class flight back home, then bill the country under who's flag the ship was operating. If they can't / refuse to pay, import sanctions.

That way, you're not punishing the crew, yet making such behavior financially uninteresting. That's the only way because the person who decided to send that ship there is probably far away and busy counting profits.

Also, it's a lot easier to capture the boat if that's a positive experience for the crew. They might flee from a trip to prison but few people run from a paid vacation offer.

After you sink the boat you can pick the crew up and give them free tickets to Disney Land or throw them in jail it doesn't matter when it comes to dissuading illegal fishing.

The point is to make the expected ROI of trespassing in other nations' territorial waters negative. The crew is cheap and easy to replace relative to the boat. So you have to make the boat go away (sink it or impound it) to make the corporate owner back on land feel the heat.

Imprison them and give them back to their home country ASAP is probably the right way to handle the crew.

And then the pirate, slave or not, plays the "Claim Asylum" card from his deck and the costs are back in your court.

That's why you recoup your money from the flag carrier country.

It would also have the nice side effect of dissuading countries to lend their flag to shady companies all over the world.

There's the large assumption that the flag carrier country will pay.

Realistically, once this becomes a strategem, and a known one, anyone with a boat can enter your waters, hoist the jolly roger, then say "Yeah, take me into asylum." And poof, your immigration procedures evaporate.

You should do some reading up on what is involved in applying for and receiving asylum in the US. Your post indicates an inaccurate understanding of what is involved and required for an asylum seeker to receive legal asylum.

I assume it is like immigration. In one sense, it is a long legal process with a variety of steps to ensure this person is serious. But in a more practical sense, it just involves crossing a border and having the phase "illegal immigrant" removed from the vocabulary.

> That's why you recoup your money from the flag carrier country.

Aren't the vast majority of these actually "flags of convenience" and registered in Panama?

> They might flee from a trip to prison but few people run from a paid vacation offer.

They may still run if accepting the paid vacation offer would be followed by imprisonment at home.

So offer them permanent residency instead. And then prepare for the logistics issue of managing a great fleet of boats racing straight to your ports.

Send them to Taiwan, because then the Chinese government can’t admit that they don’t have jurisdiction there internationally.

I appreciate the cleverness, but no: trying to solve too many problems at once ends up with no problem being solved at all.

Want to get rid of the fishing fleet? Make a credible offer of residency and amnesty to all their crews - no strings attached, no continued use as pawns in politics. Simple trade: they bring in and surrender their vessel, you give each a green card, a key to a room, some starting cash, and a "thank you for your service", and forget about them.

A good way to let a lot of spies and sabotagers into your country.

International travel is already so easy these days that spies and saboteurs have no trouble entering any country they want.

But OK, so let's scratch the "and forget about them" part. Have the counterintelligence agency keep their details in their database, and warn them that they won't get security clearance in the next decade or three. This won't discourage anyone who's eager to escape their home country.

I was under the impression that international travel was more difficult. There’s no such thing anymore as forging a passport, right?

Both easy and hard. When I've traveled to Europe I often find the the door for non-EU citizens leads to exactly the same place as the one for EU, and nobody is even watching to check passports. India was a lot more careful about verifying my VISA, which I needed to get in advance. India has more reason to fear than the EU in general.

At least for the US, any spy or saboteur who wants to enter can do so on a student visa, I am sure. Just have to pony up for tuition at any of a number of schools who are desperately looking for students who will pay.

There is more time for a background check that way. There are many ways to work around the difficult US entry requirements if an attacker is determined, but if something like this bypasses the process attackers will go for that: boats are cheap.

It's not clear to me that an ocean-going fishing boat would be cheaper than college tuition. Is it? Would love to see some data. https://horizonship.com/ship-category/commercial-fishing-ves... has prices a good bit about even 4-year tuition for all the things that list actual prices.

How to inflame a delicate situation for 300 please.

So suggest a solution that won't inflame anything?

"Dealing" with China is going to get a lot hotter. Period.

Why should Taiwan accept them?

Hooray, we can refit some of them and rebuild our own decimated sealift capability, and sell the rest for scrap only.

Or start using a bunch of them to sink for reef seeding.

The nice hotel is called prison and the Chinese Embassy should handle their release. If they work as slaves, they should testify doing so and maybe ask for political asylum. I know it's complicated with Chinese citizens being blackmailed by the PRC with their families at home, but it only takes a few to do so

This costs a lot of money, though. If it costs too much money, it won't be done. So the solution has to be cheap to be put into place.

I agree, this is the only effective solution.

>The big question is what can a nation do to stop this?

Thats why navies exist.

You send a handful of frigates and bombers there and start sinking ships.

You don't even need to sink the ship doing the "trawler wars" of the 1970ies when British pirate trawlers were plying Icelandic water(with the protection of the royal navy) Iceland manage to destroy enough trawls by dragging wires though them that the Brit's eventually gave up trying to fish in Icelandic waters.

A few trawlers got boarded but no shots were fired.

Yes, I’m surprised at how little the Western countries use their military (and police) when facing an obvious act of territorial dispute. The border police’s role now seems to be to prepare meals for immigrants rather than turning them back, just as it is common to let the fishers fish for 10 years (the problem clearly isn’t new) until the population starts noticing that our ecosystems are destroyed, rather than arresting/sinking ships.

Like any navy is supposed to.

> The border police’s role now seems to be to prepare meals for immigrants rather than turning them back

Nations like ours with low birth rates and aging workforces depend on immigrants to maintain vibrant economies. The alternative is to become like Japan, where the economy stagnates and abandoned houses litter the countryside.

At least in European context, many migrants who cross the border illegally lack sufficient education to do well in modern labour market, and end up having a very low employment rate & high dependency on welfare. Even those who do find employment are likely to have low salary that doesn't bring much tax income.

Thus uncontrolled migration can never be a solution to our population issues. Instead effort should be put into attracting more skilled workforce that is in demand, and they should come in legally.

So why not selectively import the people (workers, professions) the country needs?

There are competent engineers "waiting in line" for years, while illegals are allowed to stay... it's basically rewarding the criminals and punishing the honest ones.

You’re talking to much sense. Fact is, a portion of the people advocating for not enforcing immigration laws profit from the off-the-books labor. The greater portion are useful idealists. The difference between the two is that the latter imagine a world that concurrently has an endless supply of low skill laborers and a meaningfully high minimum wage law that would be respected. Perhaps there’s another fraction that believe in growing minimum wage for citizens and (as today) no such law for black market labor pools of non-citizens, but I like to think that level of maliciousness is not as common as hapless idealism.

We can do both. We don't have to choose between welcoming the many highly skilled professionals who want to work here, and welcoming the asylum seekers and economic refugees who are fleeing violence or poverty and eager to build a better future here. We can do both, and we would benefit from both.

Maybe the solution should be to work on the big problem that is male-female resentment. One resents the other because of 2000 years of domination, the other for being in social priority and not being effectively competent in the same position despite 60 years of fight for equality, and instead of working on bringing our citizen together, we bring new ones. I don’t know to what problem this is the solution.

Long story short, many people still want to have children, and not having fertility should be the problem that is getting addressed.

> Maybe the solution should be to work on the big problem that is male-female resentment.

Male-female resentment is not the reason fertility rates around the globe have fallen precipitously over the past century. That's a bizarre idea.

When women have access to contraception and opportunities to participate in the workforce and pursue higher education, it turns out they are less interested in raising large families.

There are tools we could be using to encourage people to have more children, such as universal childcare and pre-K, generous financial support for low-income families, and high quality public schools. Unfortunately, opponents to immigration typically also oppose these policies, too.

I don’t know about the resentment part but it is more challenging to have and raise quality kids than it should be.

Our lazze-faire(sp?) attitude towards who can have children will come back to bite us, someday. The most "successful" parents are those who invest very little into their offspring.

Is the situation in Japan really that bad? Their economy seems vibrant to me, I buy lots of products from them.

> Yes, I’m surprised at how little the Western countries use their military (and police) when facing an obvious act of territorial dispute.

Immigration is generally not territorial dispute, indeed, its far more often voting for an alternate regime with one’s feet than asserting a hostile territorial claim.

Democracies do tend to have rules preventing military action at home, yes. And they also tend to sign on to things like human rights treaties, that say arbitrarily killing people (even foreigners breaking the law) is not ok.

Time to start sinking ships.

Start accrediting privateers to protect the waters!

Letters of Marque and Reprisal.[1] This is how the early U.S fought the Barbary pirates in the Barbary Wars[2] in the early days of the republic. This power is actually authorized explicitly in the U.S Constitution.



Our 21st century take: sell the rights to the history Channel for a pirates reality series

And abolished since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, if memory serves well. And thus illegal.

It would be better to fight the defacto slavery of the crews (agencies, owners and so on), the abysmal conditions in these crews home countries and sanction the hell out the owners of these ships and the people / companies making a healthy profit from them. But why bother, because you would just end up with more expensive shipping im general and more expensive fish.

The 1856 Paris Declaration, in fact. Also the 1907 Hague Convention. The US was not a signatory to the former, and did not agree to the provision against privateering in the latter, so for the US, at least, privateering is still on the table. Argentina, however, was a signatory to the Paris Declaration. Perhaps they can change their minds, but probably they won't for something like this.

I do see a pattern here. The US didn't ratify the court in The Hague neither.

I think it’s too late to stop China

And Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia... The list is long. Western democracies don't seem to care of all the sweet dollar that is to be made in these countries. At least Russia used to pretend to play by established rules.

The problem with these rules, IMHO, is that they were created to serve the interests of western powers. Hard to force other countries to play by them, then.

You are very right.

The "our bastard" doctrine was an idiocy on massive scale, and continues to be one.

The West has bred all the snakes in the snake pit they ended up in now itself.

> "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

There is no yours, or their bastards, there are just bastards.

The very reason you're downvoted is the reason you're right. People have their heads in the sand. They don't realize that there's no political will to oppose China because China has already bought the needed to control to tamp down on any efforts to oppose them.

Hell, we're witnessing in-your-face genocide of the Uighurs, takeover of Hong Kong, imminent takeover of Taiwan, support of North Korea's psychopathic regime, destruction of the environment in every way possible (as in this story), etc... and the rest of the world sits on its collective hands. China knows how to boil frogs nice and slowly.

Killing civilians many of whom are effectively slaves from other countries probably isn't a great look

The rules of engagement are such that killing usually isn't required. They would announce who they are and tell the boats to turn around and exit territorial waters. Those who do not comply, or repeat or suspicious offenders, might get stopped, boarded, and their cargo confiscated, perhaps even their boats sold at auction. Any sailors aboard could request amnesty if they are truly in an effective-slave situation.

The only way it turns to shoot-and-sink is if the boats flagrantly disregard orders through multiple points of escalation. Even then the attempt would be to disable the ship, not destroy it (by shooting out the engine or rudder, for example).

> and tell the boats to turn around and exit territorial waters.

This feels like a way to get into a game of "you can't be everywhere at once".


You’d probably have to offer the sailors a ride before the sinking the ship to be humane. Odds are not good the average crew member has much control of the fact they are fishing somewhere illegally.


Indonesia has sunk more than 550 vessels related to illegal fishing between October 2014 to 2020. And all crews has been arrested and deported, none were killed. If Indonesia can do it, why other countries can't?

I honestly don't know what it'd take to re-home them. But the first time you sunk a fishing vessel with 20 kids on it, you'd have a global PR disaster.

It's just as illegal (and immoral) to execute people before arresting them as after.

Or just confiscating them... steel is expensive.

There are obvious reasons why killing people with one’s military isn’t the most desirable way to protect one’s national waters.

It is kind of amazing that the Chinese gets away with this.

Or some kind of tech like microwaves that causes the fisherman (or the fish?) to scatter.

This tech exists, but is probably too expensive for argentinia, but what is wrong with a good old warning shot in front of the ship?

Fisherboats do not want to fight gun ships - and just retreat if they see, the threat is serious.

Hire the CRACKEN!!!!

Individual nations can't do much on their own. Groups of nations can wage economic warfare.


I assume self-preservation instinct kicks in after the first instance of someone calling your bluff, but it can't really be helped.

Trained giant squid and dolphins would be the next impractical idea.

Final option: pull a Captain Nemo.

Putting the inner 10 year old away now.

> The big question is what can a nation do to stop this?

Really the only nation that can stop this is China.

This video claims to show the Russian navy firing on Somali pirates.

One narrative concerning piracy off the coast of Somalia is that incursion of foreign fishing fleets took away the opportunity for lawful livelihoods for those living in Somalia. Which in the context of this post is ... troublingly ironic.

If the Somalis were just attacking illegal fishing boats, they'd have a lot more moral authority for what they're doing.

They were attacking fishing boats (they didn't have a navy because there was no real government, so these attackers were pirates). The Somali pirates should get more respect from most hardliners. This is basically people grabbing guns to protect their land and create a livelihood instead of lying down to die.

Somalia shows nicely why we, as the West, has a hard time combating illegal fishing. We ignore large scale illegal fishing in Somali waters, ruining the local economy. We also ignore that our fishing fleets aren't that innocent.

When the locals, for lack of a standing Navy, defend their waters, we call them pirates and send our Navy to fight them. No surprise, that these pirates went after bigger ships, realizing that being more profitable than fishing. Now imagine a world, in which our Navies would defend Somali waters against these intrusions. While at the same time, we did some real, like non-military, backes nation building through the UN. I guess that would have been a much better way to combat piracy there. But who gives a shit about some poor bastards in a failed state somewhere in Africa?

Awful lot of ammo that misses completely. Not a very efficient weapon or just poor targeting it seems.

At some point, the only option is to sink them and drop life jackets in the area.

The sad thing is the people out there on the boats are in all likelihood just trying to scrape a living and the people who deserve to be in harm's way are higher up the economic ladder. There are a lot of world problems that amount to "no one holds China accountable" (and to a lesser extent, first world nations don't do enough to hold themselves accountable), and I would really like for countries to tax and/or sanction China for their negative externalities (e.g., pollution, overfishing) it would make the world a much better place--either China starts to compete fairly or else they lose the wealthiest markets to the advantage of the whole world and especially countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and South America who would fill the manufacturing void.

Mandatory disclaimer for the pro-China accounts: I'm very much not interested in deflecting to the West's problems--they exist, but they don't excuse China (nor does China's bad behavior excuse that of the West's). This kind of deflection is just a race to the bottom.

There's a decent chance the crew includes enslaved people.

> The sad thing is the people out there on the boats are in all likelihood just trying to scrape a living

Bullshit, somebody on board is turning off the ship's transponder. They know that they are doing something criminal.

"Desperate" doesn't imply "legally innocent". In particular, China has an abundance of desperate people (I won't remark on its political system), so punishing the desperate in this case probably won't move the needle.

Further, and I say this as someone who prefers to err on the tough-on-crime side, it's unjust to punish the desperate when the wealthy are pulling the strings, raking in the profit, and bearing none of the risk.

Not to mention all the other places crew is recruited from. Including crew on first world merchant marine ships.

Europe lost a lot, if not all, soft power during the Arabic Spring and the subsequent refugee crisis. There, we showed to the world that we outsourced border protection to people like Gadhafi. And that we really didn't give a fuck about human rights. The vile of human rights having been the moral source of Europes soft power, flanked by its economic power. The former was thrown out of the window, the latter then easily used against us by rich totalitarian countries (pick your favourite). The US witnessed something similar under Trump. Important to note, that it took almost 80-odd years since WW2 to build that power, but only a couple years to throw it out of the window.

Europe is very capable of border protection - but because of the human right thing, it is not seen as good, if the border police just shoots illegal trespassers.

So people do care about human rights.

But of course with hypocrisy - so we are quite nice - but we paid Gaddafi and now ergogan and morocco to do the dirty work to keep them away, so we can have more or less clean hands.

> The US witnessed something similar under Trump.

FWIW, this was nothing but a media circus. Trump largely continued immigration practices that existed under Obama and indeed Trump deported fewer undocumented immigrants than Obama did in his first term, but under Obama everything was great and then under Trump they were “concentration camps” and kids were in cages and being separated from their family and America is a white supremacist hellscape and etc.

This doesn’t mean that the Us didn’t deserve its immigration-policy reckoning; only that Trump didn’t do anything to cause it except offend the media.

(for the rabid partisans out there, this one particular defense of Trump doesn’t imply that I’m a Trump supporter or that he doesn’t deserve criticism for other things, etc)

Argentine coast guard opens fire on Chinese fishing boat (2019)


Argentina sinks Chinese fishing ship that entered restricted area(2016)

>"The offending ship continued to maneuver in an attempt to cause a collision" (0:20)


>Therefore, the concept of people's war was applied to the sea with fishermen and other nautical laborers being drafted into a maritime militia.

>Most vessels are issued with navigation and communication equipment while some are also issued small arms. The communications systems can be used both for communication and espionage. Often fishermen supply their own vessels, however, there are also core contingents of the maritime militia who operate vessels fitted out for militia work instead of fishing; these vessels feature reinforced bows for ramming and high powered water cannons. The increasing sophistication of militia vessels' communication equipment is a double-edged sword for Chinese authorities. New equipment, as well as training in its use, has substantially improved command, control, and coordination of militia units. However, the vessels' resulting professionalism and sophisticated maneuvers make them more identifiable as government-sponsored actors, dampening their ability to function as a gray-zone force.


S. Korean Coast Guard fires machine gun in warning to illegal Chinese fishing boats

>"They were surrounded and threatened by some 30 other fishing boats" (0:17)


You don't need to look very far to find reports like this. There are too many incidents to list here.

Taking into account the size of the problem, most persons would just assume these were the ones that did not pay the bribes...

I've been following the situation in Argentina for some years, and it seems that their military is tired of fighting with the political class for the appropriate resources. They seem to be technically competent, but the resource allocation is a joke.

Piñeyro's own documentary, "Fuerza Aérea S.A." ("Air Force Inc") showed otherwise: our military is incompetent, reckless & corrupt. Their handling of commercial airports, until taken from them by the government, was so terrible and reckless you really didn't want to fly in Argentina. Any mistake was covered up because that's how our military is used to behaving.

Also remember we Argentinians suffered a bloody dictatorship in the 70s, complete with illegal detentions, torture and executions, and while of course the military renews itself with new people, some sectors of it still haven't come to terms with their past (some remain who actually sympathize with the dictatorship or were involved in it).

So no, what you're describing is not the full picture.

Was surprised to learn some years ago that in Brazil the military was responsible for civilian air traffic management. That seemed so wild at the time. Don't know if it's still the case...

Still is the case. But here they take that job very seriously.

I even saw a higher up personally helping once, I was in an open source tech conference, and a colonel was present to show the air force work using Ubuntu and Debian, while chatting with him he got a phone call about a radar issue, he immediately picked up a laptop and started to fire up some domestic made tech and started helping the operators directly.

If the timing wasn't seemly so random I would think they did it on purpose just to show off the cool tech.

I don't know how to reconcile the safety culture of 'telling the truth no matter what' and not blaming, with the chain-of-command, authority and obeying orders sir-yes-sir of the military. I probably have a very warped view of military leaders, but I know which customers ask for the 'safety override' button...

A safety override in the military is a safety feature in itself.

In battle, overriding a safety feature might be the difference between returning fire and saving the ship and crew, or losing all hands.

Yes, I see. What I mean is that in civilian systems I designed (or helped design) the focus is on redundancy, safety and personel safety. I've felt for a long time the 'for the military' design was quick to forgo redundancies and failsafes, for better 'performance' (my vocabulary is lacking there, sorry).

The mentality is changing a lot and I'm starting to see safety requirements in contracts and more and more frequent audits from customers on the topic (even though it wasn't in the spirit of things or the contract when system was designed, ugh...) and it's very, very hard to retrofit safety and personel safety in a product line, codebase, system design, and especially in the daily reflexes of systems or sw engineers. Everyone seems to overshoot ("safety says we must do X" - well no it's still an engineering compromise you still have choices and trade-offs - "but safety!" - yes, let's go back to the safety plan, what are the critical elements, what are the failure modes, what are the chances, what is the expected system response?...)

It's particularly tough for those teams that have to swallow the double firehose of safety and "cyber"-security :-D

My father was in air traffic control in Italy and it was a military thing until 1979 or so.

Still is, you must join the air force to work as an ATC.

"Fuerza Aérea S.A." ("Air Force Inc") here:


Argentinian military, like in most of south America, is completely corrupt and should really stop existing for the good of its people. Whenever they have resources they use it to fuel military dictatorships.

I don't know. A lot of the countrys infrastructure was built by the military.

Check out the Turbot War when we in Canada sent Navy ships to confront Spanish fishing vessesls in international waters illegally overfishing. Spain and Germany also sent warships. But Ireland and the UK didnt (foreshadowing the biggest gripe of Brexit?) Turbot/halibut is a type of fish.


International water is a somewhat different situation, this is within Argentina's exclusive economic zone.


> But Ireland and the UK didnt

Yes one can only wonder why the UK would side with Canada over the EU.

> foreshadowing the biggest gripe of Brexit?

Only the biggest nonense of the brexit nonsenses.

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars. In fact, the UK's hypocritical support of Canada in the conflict led Iceland to declare for Spain / the EU.

I find this part so telling : ... domestic and foreign overfishing had taken its toll. In the end, stocks of cod in and around Canada's EEZ were severely depleted. Reluctant to act at a time of declining political popularity, the federal government was finally forced to take drastic action in 1992 and a total moratorium was declared indefinitely for the Northern Cod. The TAC for both the Canadian EEZ and NAFO regulated area was based on Canadian scientific advice. This turned out to be wrong and the Northern cod stock collapsed in 1992, and has never recovered.[5]

[5] Rose, Alex (2008). Who Killed the Grand Banks?. Toronto: Wiley. pp. 53–71. ISBN 978-0-470-15387-1.


You mean, Turbot is a delicious type of fish. I'd understand sending in the navy. Especially since it is (iirc) a fish that stays down near the 'ground' so to fish them properly you need some specific kind of equipment or you destroy ecosystems?

on the other hand, it is one of the few species of fish that can be farmed effectively inland, and the farmed ones are just as delicious

Oh, farmed turbot? I'll have to look at that, thanks.

What coast guard?

You'd have better luck getting the British to send their OPV based in the Falklands over than get any meaningful response from what little of the Argentine armed forces or other authorities have.

Probably not much. The country has been going through an very bad financial crisis.


> The country has been going through an very bad financial crisis.

It doesn't matter when you read this.

looks like an opportunity to make money and create jobs

The fleet vanishes in International waters outside the EEZ.

Yeah, but if a hobby pilot can fly over the area and find dozens of ships, the Navy/Coast Guard could do the same - send out an airplane to check, and then send a few boats over if it finds something?

Radar on an oceanic buoy is probably more efficient. Ocean buoys are giant metal spheres with some concrete ballast to add stability, attached via steel cable to an old train freight car used as an anchor. You can throw a couple hundred watts of solar and electronics on there no problem. There's hundreds of these things scattered about in the ocean for oceanic research/weather forecasting, not a new technology. Modern, consumer-grade solid state radar ($1200, off the shelf at Amazon or West Marine, google "4G radar") can pick up seagulls sitting on the water at 500 feet, or track a tiny ski 4 person boat at 10 miles.

Before you ask, no, there is no such thing as a stealth radar fishing boat.

> Before you ask, no, there is no such thing as a stealth radar fishing boat.

China: "Hold my píjiŭ."

We're living out a Neal Stephenson novel.

We're talking about a vast area of ocean. Each buoy would only be able to monitor a small circle. There are limits to anchoring depth so they can usually only be used close to score. And marine electronics require frequent maintenance due to the harsh environment.

On page 42 they talk about two different mooring systems for buoys up to 6000m in depth. Average ocean depth is approx 3000m. Marine electronics are considerably more robust than you give them credit. All my consumer grade electronics on my boat were installed in 2001 and with the exception of one LCD display are all in perfect working order.


Drones are perfect for this use case, as they have long loiter abilities at higher altitudes. Low single digit Global Hawk fleets can provide high availability over large amounts of geography.

I wonder if commercial satellite photography can do the job during night time.

Probably best for the job at night would be SAR? A bit more costly than photography though I guess... Coastal radar, with range up to 100 Nmi might also do the job. But what's the use if you're not sending in the cavalry?

Problem is that over engineered stuff like the global hawk actually have an higher pr hour cost then a converted business jet which is what most countries use.

Perfect use cause for automated killer drones

Don't assume they are able to get out of their own inertia to defend themselves on this.

"Oh the ship disappeared? What are you going to do?"

I can't help but be cynical in this situation. If their Coast Guard is as efficient as their ATC that's what you can expect.

Monroe doctrine implies the US navy has ownership too.

US navy does not "own" Argentine waters.

Maybe US could help Argentina enforce its fishing rights, in return for a lease of port space. The sort of win-win arrangement that builds mutual good will.

Would the benefit of potentially decreased fishing outweigh the cost to the current gov't of pissing off the CCP?

Being scared of the bully is how we got here. This behaviour is happing all over the pacific, and due to dependence on Chinese money, China gets away with it.

China seems to get away with whatever they want lately. When are "we" going to stop tolerating their wanton disregard for global ecological and human rights standards?

Maybe if (when) they get aggressive with Taiwain, TSMC.

Or if lab leak was proven, or lab leak + it was a product GOF deliberately created to infect humans it could provide enough public support to back it. I think there are enough hawks in government. Good or bad, a hot or 'warm' war is a huge and devastating step without huge public support across many nation coalitions. Don't want iraq 2.0 with weapons of mass infection that turn out to not be true.

China and Taiwan are the same situation we have with the Baltic States and Russia. And I have the impression both, China and Russia, are that emboldened right now that they might just call NATO and the US on these countries.

Yeah Russia is definitely already testing NATO in Ukraine, though they aren't actually in NATO.

Personally I think Trump emboldened this behavior with his child-like understanding of the politics and singular focus on 'they will pay for the wall' attitude towards NATO.

Honestly, probably nothing. There is no will to do anything about increasing Chinese belligerence and I suspect a fair amount of perks offered by China to keep it that way. Look at the silence about the Uyghurs. Nobody cares about them. Why would they care about some fish? (Granted, people often care more about fish than human beings.)

> Look at the silence about the Uyghurs.

Uyghurs is an internal affair and they brought Beijing pressure on themselves by making terrorism acts. Fishing in other nations' waters, bullying Taiwan, leaking virus are international acts that are serious enough for retaliation from the international community, if they wanted to do something about it.

> they brought Beijing pressure on themselves by making terrorism acts.

like what?

> like what?

List of incidents covered within this general Wikipedia article [1].

A factor I haven't seen discussed much in non-Chinese press is that the Xinjiang region was one of the last (if not the very last) to resist the CCP in the Chinese Civil War [2] [3], with some relatively non-trivial, remotely-originated clandestine support by both the (by then) Taiwan-based KMT and CIA until well after (around 1953) the generally-recognized end of the civil war (around 1949).

I'd like to hear the perspective of native-born Chinese "CCP-ologist" and "CIA-ologist" HN readers on how this historical background might color the CCP's current handling of the region. IMHO, both the CCP and CIA have long memories, but I could be off base.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Xinjiang_into...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_Islamic_insurgency

The CCP is not going to publicly get behind illegal fishing operations. Perhaps they tolerate it behind closed doors, but taking a stance that violating another countries sovereign waters is OK would be politically insane.

I wouldn't say so. Nearly every country that borders the South China Sea is having their sovereignty trampled on right now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_...

That's China claiming sovereignty over that particular sea though. China publicly taking the stance that all waters were international would be the opposite of that

Good question. How much leverage does China have over Argentina? It seems unlikely that Argentina exports much to China. It surely imports a lot but China doesn't seem to punish anyone by limiting its own exports.


China accounts for 11% of Argentina’s exports. I’d imagine a lot of it is soy and maybe lithium.

Wow! And most of that is agriculture. And perhaps ironically, about 6% of Argentine exports to China are "Fish, crustaceans, molluscs, aquatics invertebrates".

The World Bank says[2] that exports make up 14.25% of Argentine GDP. Assuming no substitution, if China cut off all Argentine exports, it would therefore reduce Argentine GDP by 1.56% -- a very big deal. There would of course be substitution, so that's a weak upper bound.

And maybe an extremely weak one. According to this[3] (apparently Australian news outlet which I admit I've never heard of), China's trade sanctions against Australia following the latter's suggestion that the world look more into the origins of the coronavirus only reduced Australian exports to China by 2%.

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/exports/china

[2] https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/ARG#:~:text=Arg....

[3] https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/c....

news.com.au is the umbrella for Murdoch's Australian print media.

Ah yes the doctrine used to justify things like training and arming right wing death squads to put down popular uprisings because it might introduce communism into the Americas...

Very powerful. Thanks for finding and sharing.

What is the benefit of fishing in such a tight formation? More fish caught? maybe more sense of security as a flotilla?

WOW! that looks like an invading army or something. What country's flags are those ships flying? So are those ships like sending off stealth rowboats or something into the dark past mile 201 to hall in seafood from Argentinian waters? This is nuts.

This is insane!

Norway just launched the satellite NorSat-3 with the purpose of locating boats that turn off AIS. I see that it passes over this area in Agentina several times each day.

Information about the satellite: https://yaxt25j6l6kcxh7gzsles3njx4-ac5fdsxevxq4s5y-www-romse...

Satellite map where you can see it: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php

So either the satellite will soon experience unexplained technical difficulties or China will be deploying fishing submarines soon.

No, I kid. What will actually happen is China will get caught red handed again and they'll perform the diplomatic equivalent of "So what are you gonna do about it" while pumping more jingoistic lies to their population.

I don’t understand why people are so surprised... socialism doesn’t really accept the premise of private property, private land ownership, etc. Why are we surprised when they ignore international views of land, sea and intellectual property rights?

I'd like to know when was China actually Socialist? It moved from Communism to a form of Capitalism where the single party is basically in control of who is allowed to make money; something that can be taken away by the party at any time. In just a few decades, China managed to have nearly has many billionaires as the US and it won't be long before the US is left in the dust (not that it's a particularly great metric, just shows capitalistic opportunities).

China has no respect for boundaries but demands others to respect theirs so it's not like they don't care. They do care all right, a bit too much actually if you ask Vietnam and the Philippines...

It's just a matter of what they can get away with. China is flexing its power and it will fill any void (ie Africa) where it can see an opportunity to exploit. It's not like other countries haven't done that before but China is now eager for resources and influence and they are big...

> I'd like to know when was China actually Socialist.

China has been socialist since the communists won the Chinese civil war in 1949.

China employs capitalist methods in order to further its productive capabilities in order to complete it socialist revolution. Ultimately the Chinese communist party has full and final control of all property. In other words Chinese “capitalism” does not entail private property rights as are guarded in constitutions in other countries.

Educational material:




That's just a propaganda of the CCP to hide the fact that Communism has failed their people and now they need to adopt a certain degree of Capitalism with free market to boost the economy. Same thing with the Vietnamese, an attempt to rebrand their Communism.

Actually the propaganda is that China is just a capitalist democratic country that is no longer socialist.

From the article:

> in July 2011 President Hu Jintao stressed that ‘China is still in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so for a long time to come’ (Xinhua, 2011)

China is very very interested in progressing the socialist and finally communist agenda. Believing otherwise is ignorance.

Show me the equivalent of the 5th amendment in Chinese law protecting private property rights. And please don’t forget... Chinese courts do not have the power of judicial review and cannot invalidate a statute on the grounds that it violates the constitution... ie China is a totalitarian system.

And READ the educational material before commenting!

That's what they claims, but not what they do.

This is the amendment you asked for: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/16/china

>The highly symbolic law - which also removed preferential tax rates for foreign companies operating in China - was overwhelmingly passed by the National People's Congress (NPC) on the final day of its annual two-week session in Beijing.


Again, there’s no judicial review. If you take the communist government to court because they violated the law, the court can’t make the government do anything.

The laws are only to promote production to increase the country's productive output. At any time the government can strip you of your property and redistribute it... which HAS happened numerous times already, without recourse, not appropriate compensation.

How can you possibly argue that faux property laws mean the country is not socialist??

The sooner the wider community accepts that China is a totalitarian regime with a long term communist agenda, the sooner we can stop allowing them to take advantage of the international community.

Property theft, land and sea right violation... corporate espionage. All are part of the official Chinese communist party aims.

> Yet China’s courts cannot invoke the constitution in rulings, so such a change will offer limited legal protection to peasants


How China’s Legal System Enables Intellectual Property Theft


Human Rights Practices: China


What I got from your reply is that your samples of socialism are only confined to China. I don't recognize it to be the same as for something like European socialism, China's "socialism" just a name that the CCP would like call themselves ( and this by definition is a propaganda ).

>And READ the educational material before commenting!

Seems like a real condescending way to reply.

You keep using that word Socialism, but I don’t think it means what you think it means. If you want to let ok at true socialism, look to Scandinavia. China might call what they are doing socialism, but come on, they could call it anything they want and it would still be whatever they want it to be.

Europe's socialism (for example) is very different from the Chinese one and does not suppress its citizen's private property rights. The generalization you made about socialism is not accurate outside China.

While Chinese communism is different than European, they both stem from Marxist socialism.

Private property rights are only for the good of the state. What laws exist, are for the good of the socialist system, and can be amended by the communist party at any time. Chinese courts do not have the power of judicial review and cannot invalidate a statute on the grounds that it violates the constitution... ie China is a totalitarian system.

“Private property” in China is for the benefit of the state. The basic tenant of Chinese government... “From each according to their ability, to each according to his needs” means redistribution is always in the hands of the state.

READ the educational material!

Socialism != totalitarianism yet you keep saying this.

China is socialist under their own definition of socialism. Yet they have heard the siren song and have been steadily marching closer to a state-aided crony capitalist system that resembles Russia's current system, but much better managed.

> Socialism != totalitarianism yet you keep saying this.

When did I say that? I never did. China is Socialist AND Totalitarian.

> China is socialist under their own definition of socialism


a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And PLEASE read this before replying:


You didn't actually respond to the comment. Both stemming from Marxism doesn't somehow make them magically the same, as you seem to be implying.

Again, China's 'socialism' is very different nearly all variations found in Western Democracies.

I’m not implying they are the same. I’m saying it’s still socialism.

Private property under China is fundamentally different. The communist party can redistribute it any time. You can’t sue the Chinese government to get your property back, as they can amend any laws at will.

So it being different than European communism doesn’t meant it’s not socialism.

Communism is a real-world application of socialism... Socialism itself doesn't work on real people.

source: was born in a former socialist/communist country.. both former "socialist" and former country.

Yes, it does. Socialism does not accept the premise of private ownership of the "means of production", but most private property isn't in that set.

That would be the difference between "private" and "personal" property, for reference.

What types of socialist theory are Chinese youth taught? Many people argue that China is no longer a socialist economy. They have investments and lots of private ownership.

The lack of education or at least lack of willingness to read and educate oneself in this thread shouldn’t surprise me yet again.

I can only come to the conclusion that social media is a net negative on society, since I can’t help educate ignorance, and people are unwilling to educate themselves when they have firmly held beliefs.

Social media simply allows people to become more entrenched. And some people will view this comment as the same, a form of relativism. The difference that social media comments gloss over, is there are often truths vs falsehoods. Facts vs prejudice. Social media makes it too easy to confuse the two.

HN... you are more of the same. Like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc etc. Unless these websites take measures to actively mod dis-information, they will be a net negative.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s definitely debatable how China’s socialism has evolved, what elements of Capitalism it now uses. What it’s future path holds. But no textbook, no Encyclopedia will claim that China is not socialist. To do so is not only ignorant, but in the current climate aids a propaganda narrative that continues to allow massive human rights violations.

It’s time social media sites say that user base size, absolute profits, etc are not more important than facts. More people get their information from social media than textbooks, educational systems, and primary sources than ever before.

Democracies which require informed citizenship cannot survive in such circumstances.

The writing is on the wall all around us. Let’s educate ourselves before we fall into darkness

“The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.” — Carl Sagan

This is more a problem of rampant, unchecked capitalism than anything else.

There are several groups working on IUU fishing - I worked on Skylight some at Vulcan: https://vulcan.com/skylight

Lots of opportunity to help! Illegal fishing is the #1 contributor to slavery worldwide and is in the top 3 financial crimes.

How do you get to work for something like this? Become a software dev for the UN? Vulcan itself are based in Seattle it appears: https://vulcan.com/Careers.aspx

Any European counterparts?

Generally most remote sensing companies work on projects like this (often grant funded PoCs that never see widespread adoption...), since environmental crime is one of the easiest things to identify using satellite imagery and tracking data.

EARSC.org would be a good starting point for some European companies.

Wrote it already elsewhere: There are already satellites tracking Fishing fleets


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact