Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

riskybiznews.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 192 posts

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#61

Post by InitialLastName »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #49
Scoundreller wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No shortage of drugs that can make someone a terrible driver. Many drivers are worse alcohol-free than a legally drunk good driver. Focussing on one cause of bad driving (lots of alcohol) is a weak approach to road safety.

Or a mobile device. Any time of day, I would estimate at least 50% of drivers are glancing down and using phones while driving. Even cops.

In my area, cops are worse: They often have a full-blown laptop mounted on the dashboard next to them that always to be demanding more of their attention than the road.

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#62

Post by dang »

theloco wrote: post #54
dang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please not post like this to HN? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

no problem, ill stop posting comments.

You're certainly welcome to post comments as long as they're in the intended spirit of the site! — basically that would be thoughtful, respective exchange on topics that you're genuinely curious about.

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#63

Post by goosedragons »

greenshackle2 wrote: post #25
generalizations wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you don't agree to the TOS? Pretty sure that means you can't do your taxes, and you'd get in pretty hot water as a result. To me, that implies that the Canadian government is forcing you to agree to this TOS, which further reduces its legal defensibility.

You can still mail in paper forms.

But they might still "email" any reassessment or whatever to your account if you setup paperless beforehand..

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#65

Post by idiotsecant »

Scoundreller wrote: post #38
posguy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal structures and especially state or state sponsored entities in Canada work much differently than in the US. The ICBC has a literal state sponsored monopoly over car insurance, titling a vehicle and driver licensing, whereas in the US no state handles car insurance, while titling a vehicle and driver licensing are not necessarily the same state organizations. This state sponsored vertical integration enables abu…

> Suspicionless stopping of cars en masse followed by interrogation by police seems like an overreach. I’m pretty sure Canadian DUI checkpoints are limited to interrogations about alcohol/drug intoxication (edit: and a few matters regarding the vehicle itself) unless something else is offered/observed. Supreme Court basically agreed that they are warrantless and detainments without reasonable suspicion, but considere…

> limited to interrogations about alcohol/drug intoxication (edit: and a few matters regarding the vehicle itself) unless something else is offered/observed.

Which in effect means that they are unlimited. They make wide use of drug detecting dogs. If a drug dog indicates you might have contraband, that allows further intervention. It is widely known that drug dogs can , worst case, be trained to hit when a hit is not present. Best case they have a bond with their handlers that tells them that the handler wants there to be a hit, whether the handler consciously conveys that or not. This increases the odds that there will be a hit.

Drug dogs are basically a override-the-law get you into jail free card, and any system that allows them as evidence of probable cause basically does not require probable cause.

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#66

Post by brailsafe »

cbron wrote: post #50
beached_whale wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has CBP checks on roads, doesn’t it?

Yes, but very limited. They are only allowed to ask "are you a US citizen", and walk a dog around the car. I've never had one take more than 60 seconds in either AZ or CA.

I don't believe police at checkpoints in Canada are walking dogs around the car or asking whether we're citizens or not, it's just a matter of whether or not someone's had drinks, I'm fine with it

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#67

Post by tenpies »

bawolff wrote: post #11
nayuki wrote: post #7

Also noteworthy is that compared to leading commercial websites (Amazon, Facebook, etc.), the Canada Revenue Agency website: Responds an order of magnitude slower (like 3000 ms vs. 300 ms), and has maintenance downtime hours (instead of being up 24/7). > However, the Internet is a public network and there is the remote possibility of data security violations. They conveniently ignore the fact that HTTPS is pervasive…

Personally i would rather my tax money be spent elsewhere than latency optimizing a website that i have to use once a year. The maintenance hours thing is unconsiable though. Sometimes i want to know how much tfsa room i have on sunday evening.

> Sometimes i want to know how much tfsa room i have on sunday evening

Which you wouldn't want to check with the CRA either, because the information is often incomplete and updated annually at best.

The CRA even advises that whatever numbers they give you are essentially fugazi, and you should keep your own records because if you make a mistake they will obliterate you with fines.

One of the mottos of the Canadian government is: if you make a mistake because we gave you the wrong information, it is still your fault and you will give us money.

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#68

Post by sporedro »

Retric wrote: post #59
everforward wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My guess (not a lawyer just guessing) is that if they followed all best practices and someone bruteforced an RSA 2048 key which is currently understood to not be (reasonably) possible - that might be covered? However if they left a S3 bucket open without a password, that would be under negligence? Not a lawyer either, but to me, since users have no means to protect themselves against a backend breach, it seems like…

The standard with dog bites is “reasonable precautions” to prevent them, thus a good fence that failed because it was hit by a meteor could be a perfectly reasonable defense. People don’t build structures with rocks falling from the sky in mind. On the other hand a fence the dog can open or climb over is not, which of course depends on the dog. I suspect the same would be considered for computer security. Hacker News…

Genuine question, would you not be held responsible in the US if a meteor hit your fence allowing your dog to get out and bite someone? I know that it was unpreventable but isn’t it still your dog and your responsibility?

Re: Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability

#70

Post by epgui »

idiotsecant wrote: post #65
Scoundreller wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suspicionless stopping of cars en masse followed by interrogation by police seems like an overreach. I’m pretty sure Canadian DUI checkpoints are limited to interrogations about alcohol/drug intoxication (edit: and a few matters regarding the vehicle itself) unless something else is offered/observed. Supreme Court basically agreed that they are warrantless and detainments without reasonable suspicion, but considere…

> limited to interrogations about alcohol/drug intoxication (edit: and a few matters regarding the vehicle itself) unless something else is offered/observed. Which in effect means that they are unlimited. They make wide use of drug detecting dogs. If a drug dog indicates you might have contraband, that allows further intervention. It is widely known that drug dogs can , worst case, be trained to hit when a hit is not…

No, in effect this is not an unlimited power. Just ask any Canadian criminal law lawyer what they do all day.

I don’t know about K9 units, but I’ve never seen one anywhere in Canada, except maybe at an airport once.

Post reply on HN