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

121–130 of 192 posts

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

#121

Post by vkou »

beached_whale wrote: post #46
chucksmash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The DUI checkpoints up in BC are wild too, I'm glad they are banned in Washington and Oregon. Suspicionless stopping of cars en masse followed by interrogation by police seems like an overreach. I was just wondering about these (in the US) the other day. When I was growing up, I seem to remember them being a thing and going through them as a passenger but in 20+ years of driving, including on NYE/July 4 and late at…

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

And DUI checks, and 'random' stops where the officer in question didn't like the cut of your jib, smelled pot in the car, and would love to know where you're going.

America's a big place, there's a very wide range of things that law enforcement do in it.

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

#122

Post by epgui »

Teever wrote: post #102
epgui wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They brought a bunch of police dogs into my Canadian high school for a 'random' search. I saw the principal come into the class I was in and point out a specific kid that she wanted searched. The distrust of authority that I learned from that experience is without a doubt the greatest lesson I ever got in high school.

That is for sure suboptimal, but it is not necessarily representative of most Canadians’ experiences.

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

#123

Post by alkonaut »

I doubt anyone gets fired or fined for making ToS that would never hold up in a court. The opposite seems true though: any legal department will write N things even if half of them aren't enforceable because it doesn't hurt (more than being ridiculed on HN, or by a court).

Not sure what would be the best way of getting rid of "legal fluff" though. I imagine it costs quite a lot to society to have to sift through pages of meaningless legal text in order to find important (actually valid) legal statements.

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

#124

Post by goodcanadian »

int_19h wrote: post #107
InitialLastName wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's overpriced (relative to payouts) and the funds get returned to the population at large (through public services and mitigation of indirect damage caused by drivers) then that sounds like a very effective way to get drivers to pay for their externalized costs (in a way that other countries' privatized, profit-limited insurance schemes doesn't afford).

I lived in BC 10 years ago, and the notion that ICBC is extremely overpriced for no good reason seemed to be the prevailing and rather strongly held belief cutting across the political spectrum there. I'll grant you that this is anecdata, but if there are any public opinion polls demonstrating that ICBC is doing what it's doing with an actual consent of the governed, I'd love to see them. (Elections don't satisfy thi…

I have lived in BC a couple of times in my life. The popular perception that it is overpriced is definitely a thing. To add my anecdatum, ICBC was more expensive than other jurisdictions that I have lived in, but not outrageously so. Is it overpriced? Possibly. Is it extremely overpriced? I am inclined to think not.

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

#125

Post by throwaway59596 »

epgui wrote: post #122
Teever wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They brought a bunch of police dogs into my Canadian high school for a 'random' search. I saw the principal come into the class I was in and point out a specific kid that she wanted searched. The distrust of authority that I learned from that experience is without a doubt the greatest lesson I ever got in high school.

That is for sure suboptimal, but it is not necessarily representative of most Canadians’ experiences.

Why does that matter? The point is that it can happen and it's normal enough that the principal just did it and the police just followed up, no questions asked no eyebrows batted. That it's hidden enough is worse, not better for Canada, if it was outrageous there would be outrage and everyone would know - but nobody cares.

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

#126

Post by DlSGUSTlNG »

stewx wrote: post #6

> 10. The Canada Revenue Agency has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the security of this Web site. We have used sophisticated encryption technology and incorporated other procedures to protect your personal information at all times. However, the Internet is a public network and there is the remote possibility of data security violations. In the event of such occurrences, the Canada Revenue Agency is not responsi…

[dead]

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

#127

Post by mulmen »

int_19h wrote: post #108
mulmen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government has a tendency of "do as i say not as i do". Well that’s the value proposition of government, right? A monopoly on violence in exchange for a set of rules leading to a stable society.

A set of rules that also applies equally to the government itself is one thing. But "do as I say, not as I do" is not that.

That’s the “monopoly on violence“. The government isn’t equal. They hold the monopoly on violence, until they get so far out of line that the people take it back. The only open question is how to prevent that from happening.

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

#128

Post by franciscop »

I asked my father - a lawyer in Spain - about these kind of terms, and he explained to me that the vast majority of noticeboards that claim no liability are total BS (at least in Spain, and talking about the kind that are on a wall, not signed/agreed ones). I still think it's highly relevant for this case; a contract implies agreement AND benefits for both parties, so if you cannot legally avoid agreeing to this contract it must be invalid.

The specific example was a paid garage that claimed no liability for any break-ins, any issue with the cars, etc etc. but he explained that if you are paying for a private parking, there are some expectations to the law and you cannot notice-board out of those. They are mainly a deterrent for people who are unaware of the law or these things, or made by a hapless manager.

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

#129

Post by nordsieck »

franciscop wrote: post #128

I asked my father - a lawyer in Spain - about these kind of terms, and he explained to me that the vast majority of noticeboards that claim no liability are total BS (at least in Spain, and talking about the kind that are on a wall, not signed/agreed ones). I still think it's highly relevant for this case; a contract implies agreement AND benefits for both parties, so if you cannot legally avoid agreeing to this cont…

Exactly.

In the US, there are a lot of gravel trucks that say something like

"Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for broken windshields"

But the truth is: every vehicle on the road is responsible for not dropping stuff on the road. Especially dangerous stuff. Is it difficult in the case of gravel trucks - sure. But that doesn't matter.

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

#130

Post by cjfd »

alkonaut wrote: post #123

I doubt anyone gets fired or fined for making ToS that would never hold up in a court. The opposite seems true though: any legal department will write N things even if half of them aren't enforceable because it doesn't hurt (more than being ridiculed on HN, or by a court). Not sure what would be the best way of getting rid of "legal fluff" though. I imagine it costs quite a lot to society to have to sift through page…

This is the reason I think that for any of those ToS if it turns out that any provision in them is unenforceable it should be that the whole ToS automatically becomes unenforceable.
Post reply on HN