Anti-Drone Tech Corp To Begin Selling To Public While Working With DARPA

Anti-Drone Tech Corp To Begin Selling To Public While Working With DARPA

Seattle-Police-DronesSusanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 19, 2013



Domestic Drone Countermeasures (DDC), a corporation based out of Oregon, was founded by engineers that wanted to combat the purveying unmanned aerial vehicles conducting surveillance operations in American skies.

Timothy Faucett, lead engineer for DDC, explained: “I was personally concerned and I think there’s a lot of other people worried about this. We’ve already had many inquiries, a lot of people saying ‘Hey, I don’t want these drones looking at me.'”

Faucett said that he was “personally concerned” about the use of domestic drones in American skies and have created a way to combat “local law enforcement drones and commercial [drones] that people might be using for spying.”

DDC originated as Aplus Mobile, (AM) a corporation that provides computer processors to defense contractors with patents pending. Faucett was integral in developing anti-drone technology.

AM provides technologies for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, iRobot, the US Navy, DARPA and Raytheon.

In collaborating with the US Military Forces, AM has provided technologies to combat attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) while also supporting the war on terrorism.

AM is owned by Faucett and has dedicated the corporation to securing “knowledge that when our systems are deployed in these harsh environments, our technology and workforce dedication continues to provide products that meet or exceed the expectations of our military.”

According to their website, DDC “is an OEM and Consultant that Designs, Develops and Manufactures Countermeasure Hardware Solutions and related Peripheral Systems and Software.”

The staff of DDC “[has] significant experience in aircraft, military and high-end commercial systems to provide complex specification and compliant solutions that work and are able to survive in mobile applications and harsh environments.”

DDC “has taken on the task of commercializing military technologies for use as domestic drone countermeasures.”

And while UVAs are commercialized military vehicles that are used against American citizens, DCC offers “non-offensive, non-combative and not destructive. Drones will not fall from the sky, but they will be unable to complete their missions.”

The counter-technology offered by DDC includes “multiple layer systems [to] ensure success by impeding typical drone sensors, infrared and camera capability.”

In order to purchase these “multi-layered drone shields and countermeasure domes” for protection against domestic drones used by the US military, the Department of Homeland Security and any other federal agency or local police department, a customer has to sign a non-disclosure agreement, provide proof of US citizenship and may not use this technology overseas or for illegal activity.

DDC has mapped out the areas authorized for domestic drone use.

Faucett said: “We understand the nature of the equipment drone manufacturers are using and understand how to counter their sensors. We’re not going to be countering Predator drones that are shooting cruise missiles, but we’re talking about local law enforcement drones and commercial ones that people might be using for spying.”

DDC wanted to produce a cheap enough for residential use very soon. It’s quite possible to deploy it if you were shooting a movie and wanted to protect your set, or if you had a house in Malibu and wanted to protect that, we could deploy it there. If a huge company like Google wanted to protect its server farms, it can be scaled up for a larger, fixed installation.”

Recently the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was told by the US Court of Appeals that the secrecy surrounding the Obama administration’s drone program must become public knowledge; unanimously rejecting the CIA’s go-to response of neither confirming nor denying its existence or use.

The original suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who requested through a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request for documents concerning the application of the current drone program and its implications for American’s citizen’s right to the 4th Amendment.

While the ruling stands, it does not ensure that the federal government will release documents regarding the drone program.

In an opinion, Judge Merrick Garland, along with Judges David Tatel and Thomas Griffith stated: “Although these statements do not acknowledge that the CIA itself operates drones, they leave no doubt that some U.S. agency does. Given these statements by the Director, the President, and the President’s counterterrorism advisor, the Agency’s declaration that ‘no authorized CIA or Executive Branch official has disclosed whether or not the CIA…has an interest in drone strikes’…is at this point neither logical nor plausible.”

Garland remarked that: “As it is now clear that the Agency does have an interest in drone strikes, it beggars belief that it does not also have documents relating to the subject.”

In October of last year, the CIA “suggested” that the White House approve an expansion of the CIA’s drone fleet to extend the agency’s ability to survey under a paramilitary force. This would add 10 more drones to the 35 already used in counterterrorism operations.

Ironically, the CIA denied knowledge of drone use in the US during a lawsuit prompted by the ACLU; as well as refused a Freedom of Information Act request claiming that they could not confirm US government drone use.

While speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee last month before being named replacement director for the CIA, John Brennan said that Americans misunderstand the drone program, claiming that the Obama administration would strike using drones “only. . . as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative” to avert a threat to the nation.”

In response to scene Senator Rand Paul made on Senate floor last month regarding the legality of the Obama administration’s right to murder Americans with drone strikes on US soil, Attorney General Eric Holder replied that Obama does not have the right to kill unarmed and non-combative Americans on American soil.

Paul claimed this response as a victory, glossing over the fact that Holder did not define who or what a combatant is. In this denial of the clarity of definition, it is still to be understood that if the Obama administration considers any US citizen under suspicion of terroristic involvement, they would be viewed as a combatant and an enemy of the nation – whether proposed to be a member of al-Qaeda or a patriot/constitutionalist.

Tags assigned to this article:
dronespolice state

No comments

Write a comment
No Comments Yet! You can be first to comment this post!

Only registered users can comment.