Tuesday, April 30, 2013

CCLA & CAFE Granted Intervener Status for Federal Court of Appeals review of Internet Censorship Law [Section 13]

 

CCLA & CAFE Granted Intervener Status for Federal Court of Appeals review of Internet Censorship Law

 

 

 

[APRIL 29, 2013] The Federal Court of Appeals has granted Intervener status to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA] and the Canadian Association for Free Expression [CAFE].   Both groups are intervening in support of freedom of speech and seeking to have Canada’s notorious internet censorship provision – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act – struck down as an unconstitutional abridgement to our Charter rights of Freedom of Expression.

 

Here is a copy of the courts decision:

 

  

 

 

 

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is one of Canada’s premier organizations protecting freedom of speech.  According to the Affidavit of Cara Zwibel, the CCLA was “Founded in 1964, the CCLA is a national organization dedicated to the furtherance of civil liberties in Canada … As a staunch defender of freedom of expression, the CCLA has made submissions and provided advice on a range of issues to various levels of government.

The CCLA submissions specifically address two key points in their submissions:

 

1.     The CHRT must have the ability to examine the manner in which section 13 is administered generally as part of a proper contextual analysis under section 1 of the Charter.

2.     Severance is not an appropriate constitutional remedy in the circumstances of this case, and in freedom of expression cases more generally.

 

 

 

Select submissions of the CCLA

 

17. As a component of the constitutional analysis, the CHRT considered evidence that respondents to section 13 complaints do not experience a conciliatory, preventative, and remedial process. Rather, the process is more prosecutorial in nature, with a focus on penalty and not prevention

 

19. The CCLA will submit that the Court’s conclusion in this respect constitutes an error of law. The CHRT has the jurisdiction to consider a constitutional challenge to its constating legislation. In fact, administrative tribunals are often in the best position to hear such challenges at first instance.25 Where administrative decision makers have explicit jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to their constating legislation, they must be permitted to conduct a full and comprehensive section 1 analysis.

 

20. A full and comprehensive section 1 analysis includes an assessment of the effect of the legislation. In the context of this case, the CHRT’s considerations addressed the heart of the Supreme Court’s finding in Taylor. An exploration of how the functioning of the scheme is experienced by respondents is a necessary component of an assessment of the chilling effect of the legislative restriction, particularly as it relates to future speakers.

 

21. Looking behind the text of the provisions was also required to assess whether the monetary penalty was administrative or punitive in nature. An understanding of the manner in which respondents experience the statutory scheme is highly probative and may tip the balance towards a more punitive interpretation. Again, this understanding is crucial to the section 1 analysis.

 

25. The “chill” on freedom of expression caused by the operation of sections 13 and 54(1)(c) and (1.1) of the CHRA is not remedied by carving off the penalty provisions and declaring them of no force and effect.

 

26. The very existence of section 54(1)(c) has coloured the underlying offence of hate messaging, making it more intrusive on free expression than originally envisioned by the Supreme Court in Taylor. The penalty provisions carry significant stigma, and by consequence, a “chilling effect” on free expression. This “chill” on speech captured by the scope of section 13 is not rectified by severing sections 54(1)(c) and (1.1).

 

30. The CCLA will submit that in the context of freedom of expression cases more generally, severance often serves to keep impugned statutory components “on the books” and thus contributes to an ongoing chill on free expression, undermining the attempt bring the statutory scheme on-side of the Charter.

 

 

Canadian Association for Free Expression

 

The Canadian Association for Free Expression has been an intervener for freedom since the very beginning of the Lemire case.  Both in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and before the Federal Court, CAFE has been steadfastly against censorship laws.

 

The main points which CAFE wants to address with the Federal Court of Appeals are:

 

1.    CAFE will submit that based upon the expert testimony of Dr. Michael Persinger given before Member Hadjis of the CHRT that the foundation of s.13 was based upon correlational analysis by Dr. Harry Kaufmann contained in the Cohen Commission Report (cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor) and was not based upon empirical studies.

2.    Based upon the expert testimony of Dr. Persinger, "hate speech' is a vague and uncertain phrase in light of the modern science of cognitive neuropsychology

3.    Empirical evidence established by modern cognitive neuropsychology casts doubt upon the negative effects of "hate propaganda" proposed by Dr. Harry Kaufmann making his conclusions on the subject unverifiable. There is also no scientific evidence that "hate propaganda" makes minorities afraid, deters them from full participation in society and makes them doubt themselves, such that the legislative justification for s.13 is now entirely questionable.

4.    The Taylor case did not anticipate cognitive neuropsychology research and series that have resulted in a greater understanding of the effects of "hate propaganda" upon individuals and groups in Canada. The 1966 Cohen Committee Report on "hate propaganda" on which reliance was placed by the court in Taylor requires re-examination in light of modern psychological theory and empirical data not available in 1966 and only beginning to be understood when Taylor was decided.

 

[See the full expert report of Dr. Michael Persinger,

who was called as an Expert witness by Marc Lemire]

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Background to Lemire case:

In 2003, serial plaintiff Richard Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against Marc Lemire for hundreds of postings on the Freedomsite & its message board.  None of the initial posting complained about were written or approved by Marc Lemire, but because he was the webmaster of the message board, the CHRC has prosecuted him for 10+ years now.

In 2005, Lemire challenged the constitutionality of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as an egregious censorship provision severely limiting freedom of speech and thought. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Canada's shameful internet censorship provision.

Section 13 makes it an offence to "likely" "expose" privileged groups to "hatred and/or contempt." There are NO defences under Section 13!  Even truth and intent are considered irrelevant to a finding of discrimination.

The law was enacted in 1977 in order to silence a man named John Ross Taylor for messages he recorded onto his telephone answering machine.  In the intervening 30+ years, not a single person who has been hauled up on Section 13 charges has ever been acquitted - a 100% conviction rate.

Mainstream media outlets, from Victoria to Halifax, have demanded a repeal of Section 13 and denounced the human rights industry. Editorials commonly refer to the Tribunal as a "kangaroo court," and highlight how 'human rights' commissions  "threaten our liberty."

The case against Lemire dragged on for 10 years before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and before the Federal Court of Canada, where the CHRC was forced to admit they spy on Canadian and American websites. [Some have called this entrapment!]

Since Marc Lemire and his courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka went to work, the entire landscape of Section 13 censorship has changed. On Sept 2, 2009, the Human Rights Tribunal fully acquitted Marc Lemire, and refused to apply Section 13 due to its unconstitutional provisions.  

The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeals. [more info]

 

 

 

Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

 

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case.

 

 

Please support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Marc Lemire is the only person to beat the CHRC in it's 33 year history!

 

 http://www.stopsection13.com/support.html

(Interac Money Transfers, Donate Online, and online store)

 

 

 

Marc Lemire

762 Upper James St

Suite 384

Hamilton, Ontario

L9C 3A2

 

Email:  marc@lemire.com

Web:  http://www.freedomsite.org | http://www.StopSection13.com

Twitter:  @marc_lemire

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, April 20, 2013

HRC: What's Up with Bill C-304? [Contact the Senate today!]

A good write-up from www.HumanRightsCommissions - Stand Up For Freedom Canada!.  They are a “grassroots educational campaign to defend our fundamental human rights from Canada's human rights commissions and tribunals.”

 

Please find some time to write to the Senate and ask them to pass Bill C-304.  This will strip the censorship powers away from the fanatics and “Nazi Fetishists” of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://humanrightscommissions.ca/index.php/home/181-whats-up-with-bill-c-304

 

 

What's Up with Bill C-304?

 

Many of our readers are quite familiar with Bill C-304, that freedom-enhancing bill sponsored by Mr. Brian Storseth that seeks to repeal the censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. It passed through the House of Commons relatively easily and moved on to the Senate. That was (at time of writing) 314 days ago. As we reported back in February, the Bill is still languishing there in the Senate, stuck at the "second reading" stage. So what's going on? As Connie Fournier over at Free Dominion notes, controversial 400+ page omnibus budget bills sail through the Senate in 11 days! The gun registry bill passed in 49 days. What gives? Why is a so-called "Conservative" dominated Senate holding up a free speech bill when 99% of the Conservative membership voted in favour of free speech at the latest policy convention? Is there maybe a link here with the fact that under the Conservative government, funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has actually increased? We hope not. 

Here are two things you can do:

1. Below is a sample letter for Senators that you can copy and paste into your email browser. We recommend that you edit the letter to make it as personal as possible. Then select the Senators that are in your province (see the list below for B.C., Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario as well as a complete list of all Senators). Copy their email addresses into your "to" field. Create your own subject line. Send off the email. Also, consider calling a few of them to chat directly about this issue and why it matters to you!

2. Below the Senate letter is a sample letter for the Prime Minister. Send that email to the Prime Minister as well, but also (and this is key!) follow up with a phone call afterwards. Just tell whoever answers the phone exactly what's in the sample letter. The contact information is listed below the sample letter.

That's it! You've just contributed to the preservation of freedom in this country! Thank you.

Sample Senate letter:


Dear Honourable Senator,
I've just learned about Bill C-304, the free speech bill. The Bill seeks to ensure freedom of expression for all Canadians by repealing section 13 (the censorship provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This Bill needs to pass through the Senate soon. I understand that it has been stuck in the Senate for over 300 days already!

Some people argue that section 13 is necessary to protect vulnerable groups. However, the evidence is quite the opposite. The section has been abused by a select few for their own purposes and financial gain. And real instances of hate speech are already prohibited in the Criminal Code, which has the proper legal safeguards for fair trials.

Honourable Senator, it is obvious to me that section 13 has to go and that Bill C-304 should pass. Please vote for it and ask all other Senators to do the same.

Thank you for your service to this country.

Sincerely yours,

 

Sample Prime Minister letter:

To the Right Honourable Stephen Harper,

Dear Prime Minister,

I'm sure you are familiar with Bill C-304, the free speech bill. You have consistently voted for it in the House of Commons. In fact, 99% of the membership of your Conservative Party also favour the bill. This is why I am contacting you: I am very confused as to why your so-called "Conservative" Senate appointees are holding this bill up. The anti-censorship bill has been stuck in the Senate for well over 300 days now. Is there anything you can do to encourage them to get this necessary bill passed? For the sake of freedom, please have the Senate pass this bill like they did your omnibus bills.

Sincerely yours,

 

Contact information for Prime Minister Harper

Telephone: 613-992-4211
EMail: stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca,

Senators: BC
campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca,
jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca,
martin@sen.parl.gc.ca,
neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca,
rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: Alberta
brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca,
fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca,
mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca,
mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca,
tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca,
ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: Manitoba
buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca,
chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca,
johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca,
plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca,
stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca,
zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: Ontario
atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca,
braled@sen.parl.gc.ca,
poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca,
coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca,
eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca,
egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca,
finled@sen.parl.gc.ca,
fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca,
harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca,
kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca,
lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca,
mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca,
meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca,
munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca,
mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca,
ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca,
runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca,
kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca,
setha@sen.parl.gc.ca,
smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca,
whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: All of Canada

brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca
fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca
mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca
mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca
tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca
ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca
campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca
jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca
martin@sen.parl.gc.ca
neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca
rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca
buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca
chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca
johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca
plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca
stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca
zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca
dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca
kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca
smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca
mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca
poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca
ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca
stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca
wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca
bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca
doylen@sen.parl.gc.ca
fureyg@sen.parl.gc.ca
mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca
marshe@sen.parl.gc.ca
comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca
cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca
cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca
greens@sen.parl.gc.ca
mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca
moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca
ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca
olived@sen.parl.gc.ca
patted@sen.parl.gc.ca
sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca
atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca
braled@sen.parl.gc.ca
poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca
coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca
egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca
finled@sen.parl.gc.ca
fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca
harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca
kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca
lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca
mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca
meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca
munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca
mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca
ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca
runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca
kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca
setha@sen.parl.gc.ca
smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca
whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca
callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca
pdowne@sen.parl.gc.ca
mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca
hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca
boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca
brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca
carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca
champa@sen.parl.gc.ca
dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca
dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca
dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca
debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca
tessil@sen.parl.gc.ca
fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca
frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca
hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca
lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca
joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca
maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca
massip@sen.parl.gc.ca
nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca
rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca
jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca
seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca
vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca
wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca
dyckli@sen.parl.gc.ca
merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca
tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca
wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca
langd@sen.parl.gc.ca

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

FBI intercepts and impersonation of Cell Towers [Secrets of FBI Smartphone Surveillance Tool Revealed in Court Fight]

 

Read this article from Wired Magazine.  All I can say is wow.  Shocking the type of equipment the police state is now employing.  I have known about this stuff for a while, since it has been covered extensively at various computer conferences, but to see it in operation, including a handheld model, and even reprogramming the guy’s aircard.   Just unbelievable state intrusion!

 

And don’t think this won’t effect us in the ‘Great White North’.  Harris Corp, the company which provides the Stingray and KingFish technology to the FBI, operates in Canada (http://harris.com/pdf/fact_sheets/Harris-Canada.pdf) with four different locations around Canada.  According to their sales brochure (linked above), they provide products and services for “Law Enforcement/First Responders/Municipalities: government of Alberta afrCCS Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; cities of montreal, ottawa, edmonton, Wainwright and Lethbridge;

 

 

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/verizon-rigmaiden-aircard/all/

 

 

 

Secrets of FBI Smartphone Surveillance Tool Revealed in Court Fight

 

 

 

 

A legal fight over the government’s use of a secret surveillance tool has provided new insight into how the controversial tool works and the extent to which Verizon Wireless aided federal agents in using it to track a suspect.

Court documents in a case involving accused identity thief Daniel David Rigmaiden describe how the wireless provider reached out remotely to reprogram an air card the suspect was using in order to make it communicate with the government’s surveillance tool so that he could be located.

Rigmaiden, who is accused of being the ringleader of a $4 million tax fraud operation, asserts in court documents that in July 2008 Verizon surreptitiously reprogrammed his air card to make it respond to incoming voice calls from the FBI and also reconfigured it so that it would connect to a fake cell site, or stingray, that the FBI was using to track his location.

Air cards are devices that plug into a computer and use the wireless cellular networks of phone providers to connect the computer to the internet. The devices are not phones and therefore don’t have the ability to receive incoming calls, but in this case Rigmaiden asserts that Verizon reconfigured his air card to respond to surreptitious voice calls from a landline controlled by the FBI.

The FBI calls, which contacted the air card silently in the background, operated as pings to force the air card into revealing its location.

In order to do this, Verizon reprogrammed the device so that when an incoming voice call arrived, the card would disconnect from any legitimate cell tower to which it was already connected, and send real-time cell-site location data to Verizon, which forwarded the data to the FBI. This allowed the FBI to position its stingray in the neighborhood where Rigmaiden resided. The stingray then “broadcast a very strong signal” to force the air card into connecting to it, instead of reconnecting to a legitimate cell tower, so that agents could then triangulate signals coming from the air card and zoom-in on Rigmaiden’s location.

To make sure the air card connected to the FBI’s simulator, Rigmaiden says that Verizon altered his air card’s Preferred Roaming List so that it would accept the FBI’s stingray as a legitimate cell site and not a rogue site, and also changed a data table on the air card designating the priority of cell sites so that the FBI’s fake site was at the top of the list.

Rigmaiden makes the assertions in a 369-page document he filed in support of a motion to suppress evidence gathered through the stingray. Rigmaiden collected information about how the stingray worked from documents obtained from the government, as well as from records obtained through FOIA requests filed by civil liberties groups and from open-source literature.

During a hearing in a U.S. District Court in Arizona on March 28 to discuss the motion, the government did not dispute Rigmaiden’s assertions about Verizon’s activities.

The actions described by Rigmaiden are much more intrusive than previously known information about how the government uses stingrays, which are generally employed for tracking cell phones and are widely used in drug and other criminal investigations.

The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages and operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.

The government has conceded, however, that it needed a warrant in his case alone — because the stingray reached into his apartment remotely to locate the air card — and that the activities performed by Verizon and the FBI to locate Rigmaiden were all authorized by a court order signed by a magistrate.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who have filed an amicus brief in support of Rigmaiden’s motion, maintain that the order does not qualify as a warrant and that the government withheld crucial information from the magistrate — such as identifying that the tracking device they planned to use was a stingray and that its use involved intrusive measures — thus preventing the court from properly fulfilling its oversight function.

“It shows you just how crazy the technology is, and [supports] all the more the need to explain to the court what they are doing,” says EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. “This is more than just [saying to Verizon] give us some records that you have sitting on your server. This is reconfiguring and changing the characteristics of the [suspect's] property, without informing the judge what’s going on.”

The secretive technology, generically known as a stingray or IMSI catcher, allows law enforcement agents to spoof a legitimate cell tower in order to trick nearby mobile phones and other wireless communication devices like air cards into connecting to the stingray instead of a phone carrier’s legitimate tower.

When devices connect, stingrays can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to the device’s location.

By moving the stingray around and gathering the wireless device’s signal strength from various locations in a neighborhood, authorities can pinpoint where the device is being used with much more precision than they can get through data obtained from a mobile network provider’s fixed tower location.

Use of the spy technology goes back at least 20 years. In a 2009 Utah case, an FBI agent described using a cell site emulator more than 300 times over a decade and indicated that they were used on a daily basis by U.S, Marshals, the Secret Service and other federal agencies.

The FBI used a similar device to track former hacker Kevin Mitnick in 1994, though the version used in that case was much more primitive and passive.

A 1996 Wired story about the Mitnick case called the device a Triggerfish and described it as “a technician’s device normally used for testing cell phones.” According to the story, the Triggerfish was “a rectangular box of electronics about a half a meter high controlled by a PowerBook” that was essentially “a five-channel receiver, able to monitor both sides of a conversation simultaneously.” The crude technology was hauled around in a station wagon and van. A black coaxial cable was strung out of the vehicle’s window to connect the Triggerfish to a direction-finding antenna on the vehicle’s roof, which had four antenna prongs that reached 30 centimeters into the sky.

The technology has become much sleeker and less obtrusive since then, but still operates under the same principles.

In Rigmaiden’s case, agents apparently used two devices made by a Florida-based company called Harris. One was the company’s StingRay system, which is designed to work from a vehicle driven around a neighborhood to narrow a suspect’s location to a building. Once agents tracked the signals from Rigmaiden’s air card to the Domicilio Apartments complex in Santa Clara, California, they apparently used another device made by Harris called the KingFish — a handheld system that allowed them to walk through the complex and zero-in on Rigmaiden’s air card in apartment 1122.

Although a number of companies make stingrays, including Verint, View Systems, Altron, NeoSoft, MMI, Ability, and Meganet, the Harris line of cell site emulators are the only ones that are compatible with CDMA2000-based devices. Others can track GSM/UMTS-based communications, but the Harris emulators can track CDMA2000, GSM and iDEN devices, as well as UMTS. The Harris StingRay and KingFish devices can also support three different communication standards simultaneously, without having to be reconfigured.

Rigmaiden was arrested in 2008 on charges that he was the mastermind behind an operation that involved stealing more than $4 million in refunds from the IRS by filing fraudulent tax returns. He and others are accused of using numerous fake IDs to open internet and phone accounts and using more than 175 different IP addresses around the United States to file the fake returns, which were often filed in bulk as if through an automated process. Rigmaiden has been charged with 35 counts of wire fraud, 35 counts of identify theft, one count of unauthorized computer access and two counts of mail fraud.

A PC5740 Air Card.

The surveillance of Rigmaiden began in June 2008 when agents served Verizon with a grand jury subpoena asking for data on three IP addresses that were allegedly used to electronically file some of the fraudulent tax returns. Verizon reported back that the three IP addresses were linked to an air card account registered in the name of Travis Rupard — an identity that Rigmaiden allegedly stole. The air card was identified as a UTStarcom PC5740 device that was assigned a San Francisco Bay Area phone number.

A court order was then submitted to Verizon Wireless requiring the company to provide historical cell site data on the account for the previous 30 days to determine what cell towers the air card had contacted and determine its general location. Verizon responded by supplying the government with information that included the latitude and longitude coordinates for five cell sites in San Jose and Santa Clara cities, in the heart of Silicon Valley.

In July, the government served Verizon Wireless with another court order directing the company to assist the FBI in the use and monitoring of a mobile tracking device to locate an unidentified suspect. The order directed Verizon Wireless to provide the FBI with any “technical assistance needed to ascertain the physical location of the [air card]….”

The government has fought hard to suppress information about how it uses stingrays, but in his motion to suppress, Rigmaiden lays out in great detail how the surveillance occurred and the nature of the technical assistance Verizon provided the FBI.

On the morning of July 14, 2008, FBI Agent Killigrew created a cell tower range chart/map consisting of a street map, plotted Verizon Wireless cell site sectors belonging to cell site Nos. 268, 139, and 279, and a triangulated aircard location signature estimate represented by a shaded area. On the chart/map, the total land area collectively covered by cell site Nos. 268, 139, and 279 is approximately 105,789,264 ft2. FBI Agent Killigrew used triangulation techniques and location signature techniques to eliminate 93.9% of that 105,789,264 ft2 area resulting in the location estimate being reduced to 6,412,224 ft2 represented by the shaded area. The shaded area on the cell tower range chart covers the location of apartment No. 1122 at the Domicilio apartment complex.

On July 15, agents with the FBI, IRS and US Postal Service flew to San Jose to triangulate Rigmaiden’s location using the stingray. They worked with technical agents from the San Francisco FBI’s Wireless Intercept and Tracking Team to conduct the real-time tracking.

According to Rigmaiden, the agents drove around the cell site areas gathering information about signal range and radio frequencies for each cell site sector. “The radio frequency information was needed so that the FBI technical agents could properly configure their StingRay and KingFish for use in cell site emulator mode,” Rigmaiden writes. “By referencing a list of all the radio frequencies already in use, the FBI was able to choose an unused frequency for use by its emulated cellular network that would not interfere with the various FCC licensed cellular networks already operating in the noted area.”

The next day, Verizon Wireless surreptitiously reprogrammed Rigmaiden’s air card so that it would recognize the FBI’s stingray as a legitimate cell site and connect to it “prior to attempting connections with actual Verizon Wireless cell sites.” The FBI needed Verizon to reprogram the device because it otherwise was configured to reject rogue, unauthorized cell sites, Rigmaiden notes.

On July 16, the FBI placed 32 voice calls to the air card between 11am and 5pm. Each time the air card was notified that a call was coming in, it dropped its data connection and went into idle mode. At the same time, it sent real-time cell site location information to Verizon, which forwarded the information to the FBI’s DCS-3000 servers, part of the elaborate digital collection system the FBI operates for wiretapping and pen-registers and trap-and-traces. From the FBI’s servers, the location data was transmitted wirelessly through a VPN to the FBI’s technical agents “lurking in the streets of Santa Clara” with the StingRay.

A stingray, made by Harris Corp. Image: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

 

At this point, the StingRay took over and began to broadcast its signal to force the air card — and any other wireless devices in the area — to connect to it, so that agents could zoom-in on Rigmaiden’s location.

“Because the defendant attempted to keep his aircard continuously connected to the Internet, the FBI only had a very short window of time to force the aircard to handoff its signal to the StingRay after each surreptitious voice call [and] the FBI needed to repeatedly call the aircard in order to repeatedly boot it offline over the six hours of surreptitious phone calls,” Rigmaiden writes. “Each few minute window of time that followed each denial-of-service attack (i.e., surreptitious phone call) was used by the FBI to move its StingRay, while in cell site emulator mode, to various positions until it was close enough to the aircard to force an Idle State Route Update (i.e., handoff).”

Rigmaiden maintains that once the connection was made, the StingRay wrote data to the air card to extend the connection and also began to “interrogate” the air card to get it to broadcast its location. The FBI used the Harris AmberJack antenna to deliver highly-directional precision signals to the device, and moved the StingRay around to various locations in order to triangulate the precise location of the air card inside the Domicilio Apartments complex.

According to Rigmaiden, agents also transmitted Reverse Power Control bits to his air card to get it to transmit its signals at “a higher power than it would have normally transmitted if it were accessing cellular service through an actual Verizon Wireless cell site.”

Once agents had tracked the device to the Domicilio Apartments complex, they switched out the StingRay for the handheld KingFish device to locate Rigmaiden’s apartment within the complex.

Around 1am on July 17, an FBI agent sent a text message to another FBI agent stating, “[w]e are down to an apt complex….” By 2:42 am, one of the FBI technical agents sent a text message to someone stating that they had “[f]ound the card” and that agents were “working on a plan for arrest.”

Agents still didn’t know who was in the apartment — since Rigmaiden had used an assumed identity to lease the unit — but they were able to stake out the apartment complex and engage in more traditional investigative techniques to gather more intelligence about who lived in unit 1122. On August 3, while the apartment was still under surveillance, Rigmaiden left the unit. Agents followed him a short distance until Rigmaiden caught on that he was being followed. After a brief foot chase, he was arrested.

Rigmaiden and the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued that the government did not obtain a legitimate warrant to conduct the intrusive surveillance through the stingray. They say it’s indicative of how the government has used stingrays in other cases without proper disclosure to judges about how they work, and have asked the court to suppress evidence gathered through the use of the device.

U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell is expected to rule on the motion to suppress within a few weeks.

 

 

 

This article is from:  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/verizon-rigmaiden-aircard/all/

 

 

Saturday, April 13, 2013

CHRC 2012 Annual Report shows Section 13 is literally dead. (Complaints - Received and Accepted by CHRC a total of **2** in 3+ years)

 

Here are the figures from the CHRC’s 2012 Annual Report.   It clearly shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that Section 13 censorship is not needed in Canada.  It’s time to repeal or find Section 13 unconstitutional! Please contact your Senator and ask them to support Bill C-304 – an Act to strip the censorship powers from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  (more info here: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/we-need-to-push-senate-to-repeal.html)

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.chrcreport.ca/report/outcomes-complaints-eng.html#complaints

 

Figure 4 - Complaints received by types of allegation cited

 

2010

2011

2012

 

#

%

#

%

#

%

Employment-related (sections 7,8,9)

1,554

72

2,070

71

1,658

72

Services-related (sections 5,6)

294

14

435

15

390

17

Harassment – employment (section 14)

194

9

290

10

176

8

Union membership (section 9)

71

3

59

2

48

2

Retaliation (section 14.1)

32

1

36

1

32

1

Harassment – services (section 14)

17

1

33

1

7

-

Notices, signs, symbols (section 12)

1

-

-

-

3

-

Hate messages (section 13)

5

-

4

-

-

-

Pay equity (section 11)

1

-

2

-

-

-

Intimidation (section 59)

-

-

-

-

1

-

Total

2,169

100

2,929

100

2,306

100

* Total number of allegations cited exceeds the total number of received complaints because some complaints dealt with more than one allegation.

 

Figure 8 - Complaints accepted by types of allegation cited

 

2010

2011

2012

 

#

%

#

%

#

%

Employment-related (sections 7,8,9)

1,080

73

1,055

70

926

69

Services-related (sections 5,6)

169

11

247

16

207

15

Harassment – employment (section 14)

114

8

175

12

124

9

Union membership (section 9)

80

5

-

-

52

4

Retaliation (section 14.1)

20

1

22

1

28

2

Harassment – services (section 14)

11

-

15

1

6

-

Notices, signs, symbols (section 12)

1

-

-

-

2

-

Hate messages (section 13)

-

-

1

-

1

-

Pay equity (section 11)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Intimidation (section 59)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

1,475

100

1,515

100

1,346

100

* Includes employers in the core public administration, separate federal government organizations or agencies and Crown corporations.

 

 

Section 13 complaints accepted by CHRC:  

 

·       0 in 2010. 

·       1 in 2011

·       1 in 2012.

 

And we need Section 13 censorship for?????

 

 

 

I need your help for the Appeal!

 

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the Federal Court of Canada challenge to defeat Canada’s internet censorship legislation, has consumed an immense amount of time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my wonderful children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spend a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.

My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

Every victory we've attained against the "Human Rights" juggernaut has come at great expense. Nothing has come easy.  In fact, the “Human Rights” Commission has done everything in their power to stop exposure of their twisted censorship agenda.

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case.

Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

762 Upper James St

Box 384,

Hamilton, Ontario,

L9C 3A2

Canada

 

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com