I hope there’s more meat to the reason than a nebulous and unfalsifiable "rigorous scrutiny by Canada's national security and intelligence community".
A country can set whatever rules of engagement they want, but they ought to be transparent.
A country can set whatever rules of engagement they want, but they ought to be transparent.
> Last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer ordered Jia, Bluevec and another Bluevec employee to pay $800,000 to SkyCope for misusing its confidential information and selling a direction-finding code to Chinese anti-drone company Beijing Lizheng Technology.
Sounds like Bluevec was taking direct investment from China, and relaying trade secrets of a Canadian company working in the defence industry to a foreign adversary.
SkyCope itself is owned by a Chinese company, Shenzhen Shengkong. Bluevec is, if anything, the more "Canadian" of the two companies.
> [188] Skycope submits that it and its parent companies have suffered detriment by being forced into extensive litigation in China and that Bluvec and Lizheng’s entry into the market has harmed Skycope and Shengkong’s market position in China. ...
> [222] ... Similarly, there is no evidence that Skycope (including its parent, Shengkong) operates outside of Canada and China.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1288/2023...
Why? It's an administrative action.
If the companies want, they can disclose it or fight it in court, which would open the allegations to the public.
How does it hurt security to say it out loud? "CCP stealing anti drone tech = illegal" Are we just suppose to start up companies, wait for a weird investment that ends up being from the wrong person and blammo company destroyed?
Incase these idiots still don't understand why an entire convoy of random truckers can rise up to protest, let me say it in plain english: Since covid, this government has decided it can launch new/illegal "laws" immediately and without discussion at the drop of a hat. But it is completely fucktarded with them by not making any sense or doing it for normal everyday citizens: if chinese foreign interference is actually "bad" then why arent you clawing back all the real estate to sell cheaper to real citizens? Why just when it gets close to "national security" (which is really just smart use of radio equipment you dont even understand) is that you execute immediately without telling anyone why/how/what next/is it illegal to just use radios now?? please papa-gov use your words and stop hitting me...
It's not just security. When the IRS sends me a letter, I'd prefer that not be a matter of public record.
> wait for a weird investment that ends up being from the wrong person and blammo company destroyed
There is no non-military, non-law enforcement market for anti-drone technology. (Caveat: I don't know Canada's rules around shooting down objects in the airspace above your private property.) That makes it obviously a national-security manner.
If you're in that space, you don't take money from your country's adversaries. For Canada that includes China, Russia and North Korea. If this is confusing to someone, and it's really not, they should not start a business in this space.
> if chinese foreign interference is actually "bad" then why arent you clawing back all the real estate to sell cheaper to real citizens?
You really don't see the difference between anti-aircraft systems and condos?
Would you consider the counter-drone systems that are currently deployed over large fixed population gathering spaces, e.g. football stadiums, to be "law enforcement"? To me, they fall pretty squarely into the "private security" vertical.
These already-in-use systems don't involve any gun or missile fire — but rather, they work by a combination of targeted (microwave laser?) jamming; automated vulnerability-exploiting; and as a last resort, dispatching a very fast (but lightweight — so wouldn't hurt a person if it bumped into them) counter-drone to ram into and entangle itself with the incoming drone's propellers.
I think these systems intentionally avoid the obvious strategy (shooting at the drone), precisely so that they can be deployed legally by private companies.
---
...also, just to be silly: what would you consider a furture where they're selling anti-drone technology to drone companies, to enable e.g. delivery drones with some time to kill to go confuse their competitors' drones (and thereby slow down their competitors' drone deliveries?)
AFAICT, as unethical as it is, there's nothing illegal about that use-case. (It's not "harrassment" as there's no human involved; it's not "property defacement" because there's no damage being done; etc.)
If they’re only jamming, no. Counter-drone actions, yes.
This company didn’t seem to do the latter. But the fact that they listed Chinese military customers on their website sort of gives the game away. (SkyCope is also Chinese owned. They appear to be continuing to operate. We can thus conclude this isn’t about ownership.)
Tackling someone doesn’t rain debris. We regulate airspaces for a reason.
The people involved undoubtedly know precisely what went wrong.
They took a much more active role than just accepting CCP money according to the courts:
> Last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer ordered Jia, Bluevec and another Bluevec employee to pay $800,000 to SkyCope for misusing its confidential information and selling a direction-finding code to Chinese anti-drone company Beijing Lizheng Technology.
It is standard practice for startups that work in proximity to the national security sector to vet their investors such that this is not an issue. Everyone knows the rules and the risks.
This is extraordinarily correct.
> How does it hurt security to say it out loud?
Comparing Gov NatSec claims against known facts teaches us something over and over and over again: Govs lie.
Specifically, directors & spokesbots of LEO, IC and NatSec agencies
have no history of telling the public meaningful truths by default.
--- Not just federal but state and local LEO, etc. ex: Cops say strangers will kidnap my kids. 50 years of FBI stats say kids are safer than ever.
Bluevec was the subject of a civil suit by competitor Vancouver-based SkyCope Technologies, which alleged Bluevec stole trade secrets through former SkyCope employees and gained a competitive advantage.
Last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer ordered Jia, Bluevec and another Bluevec employee to pay $800,000 to SkyCope for misusing its confidential information and selling a direction-finding code to Chinese anti-drone company Beijing Lizheng Technology.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/two-b-c-companies-o...
"...ministry spokeswoman said it cannot provide more details citing confidentiality provisions in the Investment Canada Act, the legislation that allows for a national security review of any foreign investment into the Canada, regardless of its value" [1].
Presumably the companies can disclose. But "Bluevec has not yet responded to a request for comment about the federal order of dissolution."
[1] https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/two-b-c-companies-o...