[HN Gopher] Two B.C. companies ordered to shut down on national ...
___________________________________________________________________
Two B.C. companies ordered to shut down on national security
grounds
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 87 points
Date : 2024-05-25 19:30 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vancouversun.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vancouversun.com)
| walterbell wrote:
| Local details in this article:
| https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/two-b-c-companies-o...
| perihelions wrote:
| This article is much more informative than the current OP
| (Reuters); one vote for me that mods put up this one instead.
| dang wrote:
| Changed to that from https://www.reuters.com/business/canada-
| orders-dissolution-t.... Thanks!
| mc32 wrote:
| 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.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Beijing should not be involved in security tech. Seems
| sufficient to me
| mc32 wrote:
| They should spell out what they did or do.
| bozhark wrote:
| One can easily guess those metrics.
| edgineer wrote:
| I have two guesses. First is some financial tie to the
| Chinese military. Second is the Canadian government
| protecting its own offensive drone operations.
| abirch wrote:
| From another comment thread here:
|
| 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...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _should spell out what they did or do_
|
| 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.
| beefnugs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I'm gonna guess this one ain't gonna be some kind of grey
| area.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What 's the difference between a counter-drone
| tackling an attack drone, and a human bodyguard tackling
| a hitman?_
|
| Tackling someone doesn't rain debris. We regulate
| airspaces for a reason.
| jszymborski wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _hope there's more meat to the reason than a nebulous and
| unfalsifiable_
|
| "...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...
| alistairSH wrote:
| 30 seconds of digging indicates the drone company sold anti-
| drone tech to China. Seems like an obvious no-no for a Canadian
| company, no?
| jszymborski wrote:
| This gives a good clue as to what was going on:
|
| > 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.
| aragonite wrote:
| > ... 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.
| ..
| jszymborski wrote:
| This is about selling the trade secrets to "Chinese anti-
| drone company Beijing Lizheng Technology".
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "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.
|
| In court, Jia testified Lizheng was Bluevec's biggest customer,
| but SkyCope alleged Jia was the owner of the Beijing company.
| Court records cited a decision on a separate case by a Beijing
| arbitration commission that found Jia was a shareholder in
| Lizheng and held shares in the company held in trust by other
| individuals."
|
| TL; DR Founder appears to be a serial liar per court decisions in
| China and Canada. He stole anti-drone technology from a Canadian
| company (EDIT: stole Canadian technology from a Chinese-owned
| company operating in Canada) and gave it to China.
| mc32 wrote:
| This much better and spells out clear reasons. Looks like
| industrial espionage. Done I don't know the structure of the
| company can't tell if it's reasonable or not to shut down the
| whole company. Of course it could be, if they were set up
| intentionally to do just that with some stooges along the way.
| jszymborski wrote:
| While the administrative action is opaque, the B.C. Supreme
| Court isn't, and they found Bluevec guilty of "misusing its
| confidential information and selling a direction-finding code
| to Chinese anti-drone company".
|
| That, to me, doesn't "look like industrial espionage", but
| rather is pretty clear cut.
| linearrust wrote:
| > That, to me, doesn't "look like industrial espionage",
| but rather is pretty clear cut.
|
| If the article is to be believed, it's two chinese co-
| workers who transferred to canada and started two competing
| firms in canada. And one stole tech from the other. My
| advice is stop reading comments from 'China hawk' shills
| like JumpCrisscross but read the article.
|
| 'The two met when working in the Beijing office of
| Fortinet, a cybersecurity firm. Both transferred to
| Fortinet's Vancouver office and became good friends. After
| Liu left the company in 2016 to form SkyCope and work on
| developing anti-drone technology, Jia joined him months
| later as SkyCope's chief technology officer.'
| jszymborski wrote:
| The courts found that they sold the tech to a Chinese-
| owned company ("selling a direction-finding code to
| Chinese anti-drone company Beijing Lizheng Technology").
| In the defence space, this is an issue of national
| security.
|
| I've only made reference to the article, literally
| quoting it.
| linearrust wrote:
| > TL; DR Founder appears to be a serial liar per court
| decisions in China and Canada. He stole anti-drone technology
| from a Canadian company and gave it to China.
|
| You never stop with the anti-china propaganda.
|
| 'The two met when working in the Beijing office of Fortinet, a
| cybersecurity firm. Both transferred to Fortinet's Vancouver
| office and became good friends. After Liu left the company in
| 2016 to form SkyCope and work on developing anti-drone
| technology, Jia joined him months later as SkyCope's chief
| technology officer.'
|
| It is one chinese guy stealing from another chinese guy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the anti-china propaganda_
|
| I _am_ a China hawk. But nothing here implicates the CCP.
|
| > _It is one chinese guy stealing from another chinese guy_
|
| One, their ethnicity and even nationality are irrelevant.
|
| Two, that was already adjudicated. _This_ action is about one
| person--with adverse court records in two countries--stealing
| defence technology and "selling" it to a company he controls
| in China. The stealing was a civil matter. The exfiltration
| is a national-security one.
| linearrust wrote:
| > I am a China hawk.
|
| You are also 'american' too right?
|
| > But nothing here implicates the CCP.
|
| Yet you wrote: "He stole anti-drone technology from a
| Canadian company and gave it to China."
|
| > One, their ethnicity and even nationality are irrelevant.
|
| Sure it does. Why else would you have written : "... and
| gave it to China."
|
| It's amazing how certain kinds of 'hellish flamebait' are
| allowed by dang.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _You are also 'american' too right_
|
| This happens in Canada.
|
| > _Why else would you have written : "... and gave it to
| China."_
|
| Because he gave it to China! If I transfer military
| technology from idk Russia to my American company, I gave
| that kit to America. Whether I'm American is irrelevant.
| (And that action _per se_ doesn't mean I coordinated with
| the CIA.)
|
| Countries can use agents of backgrounds other than their
| dominant one. Not every Russian spy is of a Russian
| ethnicity.
| linearrust wrote:
| > This happens in Canada.
|
| I know it happened in canada. But you are well known here
| for lying to push your anti-china agenda. Like lying
| about being american.
|
| > cause he gave it to China!
|
| But you wrote "But nothing here implicates the CCP.".
|
| > If I transfer military technology from idk Russia to my
| American company, I gave that kit to America.
|
| This is beyond pathetic. Yes. If you stole tech on behalf
| of the american government. But if you stole it for your
| own selfish interests, then no.
|
| But you know that. But then again, you are a self-
| proclaimed 'china hawk' which means you are going to lie
| no matter what. Right?
| aragonite wrote:
| > He stole anti-drone technology from a Canadian company and
| gave it to China.
|
| No. SkyCope itself is owned by a Chinese company, Shenzhen
| Shengkong. Also, Bluevec did not "give" the anti-drone tech to
| "China". It sold it to a (different) Chinese company for
| $800,000.
|
| > [182] The defendants' submissions characterize the Bluvec
| Code as "rudimentary" and say it did not use anything other
| than technology that was commonly known in the industry.
| However, Dr. Pan admitted that, while he was still working at
| Skycope, he wrote direction-finding code for Mr. Jia that later
| became part of the Bluvec Code. Bluvec subsequently sold that
| direction-finding technology to Lizheng for $800,000.
|
| > [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...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _SkyCope itself is owned by a Chinese company_
|
| Thanks. Edited.
|
| Given Ottawa is using a national security law, it would
| appear there would be ring-fencing around SkyCope that these
| companies didn't have. Curious if SkyCope has military
| customers in China like at least one of these companies
| allegedly did [1].
|
| > _Bluevec did not "give" the anti-drone tech to "China". It
| sold it to a (different) Chinese copmany_
|
| Don't court records in China show the company he "sold" it to
| is controlled by him?
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240105144551/https://pegaun
| i.c...
| Animats wrote:
| Here's more useful background. Back in 2018, SkyCope, which makes
| drone detection and jamming devices, won an injunction against
| one of their founders who split off to found a competing
| company.[1] Later, two competing companies. He also founded
| Pegauni.[2] This seems to be a follow-on of that dispute.
|
| Back in 2018, small drones were not much of a national security
| issue. Now, they are.
|
| [1] https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-anti-
| dron...
|
| [2]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240202225640/https://pegauni.c...
| perihelions wrote:
| They're not very subtle about what they are doing,
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240105144551/https://pegauni.c...
| ( _" Customers"_)
|
| - _" Military/National Security Projects"_
|
| - _" Macau Battleship"_
|
| - _" Chinese National Parade"_
|
| - _" Chinese Air Craft Carrier (No Pictures due to security
| reasons)"_
|
| - _" National Security Beijing"_
|
| - _" Military Base Security"_
| aragonite wrote:
| That background leaves out the fact that Skycope itself is
| literally owned by a (different) Chinese company, so I doubt
| this is a follow-on of that in any straightforward sense.
|
| > [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...
| nickpeterson wrote:
| It's a shame a two companies that have been in business for over
| 2000 years were brought down by a court order
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| There aren't actually any companies that old. The closest
| (according to Wikipedia) is Jin Gang Zu (Kongo Gumi), which
| was family-owned for over 1420 years, until its purchase by a
| conglomerate in 2006.
| omneity wrote:
| I read it as a double entendre joke about B.C.
|
| Whether it's appropriate on HN is another matter.
| josh2600 wrote:
| Just make all security tech open source, then there's no issues!
|
| I jest! (But kinda not?!)
| RecycledEle wrote:
| One could ask: Why is the US not a decade ahead of the rest if
| the world in weaponizing small drones and deploying
| countermeasures to them?
|
| The answer is a few letter: ATF & FAA.
|
| If the original intent and clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment to
| the United States Constitution had been honored, armed drones and
| countermeasures to them would be common in the USA.
|
| If the US looses a war in the next 20 years, it will be the fault
| of the ATF & FAA.
| hatenberg wrote:
| Yes, let's add citizens terrorizing each other with drones to
| the list of problems we have.
| crummy wrote:
| That's the price of the second amendment!
| marnett wrote:
| My understanding of military tech is that it is fairly hard to
| determine where the current state of the art is due to just how
| classified it all is.
|
| How can you claim this with confidence?
| gumby wrote:
| There are reports from Ukraine that US supplied drones (both
| civilian and military) have not been effective -- and this
| from a country that has been able to put drones made of
| cardboard to good use!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _reports from Ukraine that US supplied drones (both
| civilian and military) have not been effective_
|
| Source? To my knowledge, we're not sending anything newer
| than the Iraq War to Ukraine. That means decent missiles
| but crappy drones.
| mikewarot wrote:
| They make drones by the millions, it doesn't matter how many
| $200,000 gold plated hangar babies we have, they'll be
| swamped by the end of the first month, and we won't be able
| to replace them.
| loceng wrote:
| Which shouldn't necessarily instil confidence, as that
| technology isn't distributed and if a government was to
| become corrupted/captured and tyrannical, then the government
| would exclusively have access to that latest tech.
| TylerE wrote:
| It is foolish to assume they aren't. They've been flying the
| things since the 80s
| benblu wrote:
| This thread is a weird place for you to soapbox. This is about
| two companies in Canada. Not only that, but it's about
| intelligence / security concerns, not airspace regulations.
| Jerrrrry wrote:
| >Why is the US not a decade ahead
|
| your implication runs foul there.
|
| carry a big stick, but never pull it all out. just enough to
| win the stick-measuring contest.
|
| The pitcher doesn't throw past 50% in warm-ups for a reason.
|
| You know who benefits from the "idea" of an "incompetent" U.S
| military?
|
| Us. Our intentional false projection of insecurity is just
| another layer of obfuscation.
|
| A swarm of drones in any city could be neutralized within
| seconds if warranted.
|
| You severely underestimate the power of the most powerful
| nation of the planet.
| fragmede wrote:
| Hopefully. But where military tech trickles down to
| consumers, and consumers can't have any fun with drone thanks
| to the FAA, we don't have the drone ecosystem that it would
| take to win that contest. The US military draws from the US,
| so it can't go to the civilians and ask for drone operators
| and mechanics and engineers if there's not a vibrant drone
| ecosystem. How many high schoolers in the US are playing with
| drones to become future drone company owners? Manufacturing
| them, designing new ones, fixing existing ones. I want to
| believe but the FAA rules are just so stifling that it's just
| not there.
| Jerrrrry wrote:
| Chilling effect, sure.
|
| But between youtube, cheap IR cameras, 10k-Neuron-Net
| running on a raspberry pi, github open source swarming
| algos, extremely cheap 3'D printing, hap-hazard innocuous
| chemicals, and a global ubiquitous surveillance state...
|
| A "sufficiently motivated citizen" could literally walk
| down the street, encounter an altercation, and snap their
| fingers, and have their opponent 'neutralized' within
| seconds, all with off the shelf hardware and open source
| software, right now.
|
| These people exist, but do we really want to stir them?
| narrator wrote:
| The Houthis have shown that with the proliferation of advanced
| cheap drones we're starting to enter a period like the 18th
| century where random rebels can compete militarily with nation
| states. The ATF and FAA don't know how to handle that.
| Meanwhile, U.S adversaries are taking advantage of that
| paralysis.
| chx wrote:
| I would like to know what gives the federal government power to
| do this -- and whether a court of law got involved.
|
| When Stephen Harper tried to revoke citizenship _without judicial
| oversight_ we have sacked him. I am not quite sure how I feel
| about this if a court was not involved but I can 't find the
| source. I at least would feel rather uneasy if the gov could just
| say "this company shouldn't exist".
|
| Edit: ah. Found it. https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-
| economic-develop...
|
| > In accordance with the Investment Canada Act, foreign
| investments are subject to review for national security concerns.
|
| I guess that's ... okay. I would still have much more liked a
| court in the middle but I guess since this is specifically a
| foreign investment this is ok. The very act https://laws-
| lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-21.8/FullText.htm... begins with:
|
| > Recognizing that increased capital and technology benefits
| Canada, and recognizing the importance of protecting national
| security, the purposes of this Act are to provide for the review
| of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in a manner
| that encourages investment, economic growth and employment
| opportunities in Canada and to provide for the review of
| investments in Canada by non-Canadians that could be injurious to
| national security.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-25 23:01 UTC)