I’m going to take a different approach here. I will put politics aside by stating that we should not discriminate against participation or signal collection based on political views. This should be a collaborative community that comes together on the shared goals of science, not to be divided against each other as our countries battle. (plus, it would be a never ending game of “Station A won’t participate in Country B’s receptions”)
Now, politics aside:
In the future, more cubesat operators are going to look to us as their source of data. SatNOGS is the tool. How we define the guidelines around this tool can have a definite butterfly effect down the road.
I think it is on us to introduce one restriction: international frequency coordination (ITU/IARU). This audience knows very well that space is exploding exponentially right now. New satellite operators are going to come to expect that they’ll be able to find their signal and data on our network. At what point would the network become a problem to space in general by enabling satellites that don’t adhere to international coordination?
This problem is young but its a problem that we should draw a line in the sand for nonetheless (and it is not just about KMS-4… swarm has been accused of launching 4 satellites that were denied coordination earlier this year).
‘but couldn’t ITU coordination become political?’ maybe… and until it can be proved to us that frequency coordination has become politicized we should back it. It is what currently prohibits a country from deciding they want to start using up 20mhz at 430mhz to broadcast TV, which would ruin everybody’s day, and then our network would be all for naught. Would we back that action with the stance that space should be free to all?