4 ms·

Because it completely destroys my faith and trust in the government. We cant follow the rules unless we know the fucking rules. How does it hurt security to sa

Because it completely destroys my faith and trust in the government. We cant follow the rules unless we know the fucking rules. 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...

FredPret 2y ago
Vet your investors? You know exactly what the rules are. They’re just not telling the public which rules were broken, nor do they have to. The people involved undoubtedly know precisely what went wrong.
roughly 2y ago
I’m gonna guess this one ain’t gonna be some kind of grey area.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> How does it hurt security to say it out loud? 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?
- derefr 2y ago
  > There is no non-military, non-law enforcement market for anti-drone technology. 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.)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 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"? 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.)
    - derefr 2y ago
      What's the difference between a counter-drone tackling an attack drone, and a human bodyguard tackling a hitman? Human bodyguards are definitely "private security."
      - 2y ago
jszymborski 2y ago
> 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? 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.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> We cant follow the rules unless we know the fraking rules. 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.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
> 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? 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.
jncfhnb 2y ago
Sounds like the kind of thing someone who wants to obey the letter of the law but break the spirit of the law would say

FredPret 2y ago

Vet your investors? You know exactly what the rules are. They’re just not telling the public which rules were broken, nor do they have to. The people involved undoubtedly know precisely what went wrong.

roughly 2y ago

I’m gonna guess this one ain’t gonna be some kind of grey area.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> How does it hurt security to say it out loud? 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?

derefr 2y ago
> There is no non-military, non-law enforcement market for anti-drone technology. 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.)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 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"? 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.)
  - derefr 2y ago
    What's the difference between a counter-drone tackling an attack drone, and a human bodyguard tackling a hitman? Human bodyguards are definitely "private security."
    - 2y ago

jszymborski 2y ago

> 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? 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.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> We cant follow the rules unless we know the fraking rules. 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.

jandrewrogers 2y ago

> 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? 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.

jncfhnb 2y ago

Sounds like the kind of thing someone who wants to obey the letter of the law but break the spirit of the law would say