Canada's tax revenue agency tries to ToS itself out of hacking liability • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by 908B64B197 » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 6:31 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #160

908B64B197 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might have more rights on paper in the US, but in many respects, you have more of them in practice in Canada. The letter of the law matters way less than how the law is implemented in practice. Public culture, legal culture, political culture, and policing culture all play into this. In Canada the government unilaterally suspended the constitution (because that's a thing over there?) in the 70's for mailbox bom…

Just three summers ago, the government spent a bit over a month, regularly gassing, brutalizing, and beating peaceful protestors in my town. And it didn't even need to unilaterally suspend the constitution to do so. It didn't seem like anyone needed to suspend the constitution to firebomb a neighbourhood in Philadelphia in 1985, either. 250 completely uninvolved people were left homeless by that. Go back a bit furthe…

And to that I say the perpetrators should be held accountable and prosecuted. The fact that it wasn't is a completely different issue.

They should certainly not be able to avoid prosecutions because "woops we decided that, on that particular day we'll just ignore the constitution". You can't build a truly free country without the rule of law.

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

#162

Post by matbilodeau » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

brasic wrote: post #89

matbilodeau wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where 3149 would come in. Maybe even 3150 if you have "ID theft" insurance. 3149. Québec authorities also have jurisdiction to hear an action based on a consumer contract or a contract of employment if the consumer or worker has his domicile or residence in Québec; the waiver of such jurisdiction by the consumer or worker may not be set up against him. 3150. Québec authorities also have jurisdiction to hear an…

Why would the TOS of a site operated by a national government agency qualify as a “consumer contract or a contract of employment”? And why would a provincial law constrain the actions of the federal government? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada) As GP noted, sovereign immunity might be relevant here.

Thankfully , the Civil Code also contains definitions for contracts So here we are dealing with an contract of adhesion (terms being imposed by CRA).

Here's an interesting case that may enlighten, however it was approached as a consumer contract because it was not onerous. https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs1506/2011...

How onerous is it to be forced to use CRA online services ? Are the taxes you pay considered onerous ? Are the CRA TOS considered an adhesion contract ?

This should really be tested by by the justice system rather than enthusiasts on a discussion forum. However, since we're all governed by such laws, it's never a loss to spend time on learning about them, especially physics.

1378. A contract is an agreement of wills by which one or several persons obligate themselves to one or several other persons to perform a prestation. Contracts may be divided into contracts of adhesion and contracts by mutual agreement, synallagmatic and unilateral contracts, onerous and gratuitous contracts, commutative and aleatory contracts, and contracts of instantaneous performance or of successive performance; they may also be consumer contracts.

1379. A contract of adhesion is a contract in which the essential stipulations were imposed or drawn up by one of the parties, on his behalf or upon his instructions, and were not negotiable. Any contract that is not a contract of adhesion is a contract by mutual agreement.

1384. A consumer contract is a contract whose field of application is delimited by legislation respecting consumer protection whereby one of the parties, being a natural person, the consumer, acquires, leases, borrows or obtains in any other manner, for personal, family or domestic purposes, property or services from the other party, who offers such property or services as part of an enterprise which he carries on.

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

#163

Post by matbilodeau » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

emptybits wrote: post #95

Canadian here. Thank you for sharing your Terms of Service. I don't agree to them. Thus, I wish to opt out of your Tax Revenue Collection Service. M'kay?

You don't need a computer to file your taxes. Paper kits are provided by CRA and declarations can be submitted on paper by mail. Potential use cases being technology illiteracy, access to reliable internet connections just to name a few .

https://www.canada.ca/fr/agence-revenu/services/formulaires-...

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

#164

Post by vkou » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #161

vkou wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just three summers ago, the government spent a bit over a month, regularly gassing, brutalizing, and beating peaceful protestors in my town. And it didn't even need to unilaterally suspend the constitution to do so. It didn't seem like anyone needed to suspend the constitution to firebomb a neighbourhood in Philadelphia in 1985, either. 250 completely uninvolved people were left homeless by that. Go back a bit furthe…

And to that I say the perpetrators should be held accountable and prosecuted. The fact that it wasn't is a completely different issue. They should certainly not be able to avoid prosecutions because "woops we decided that, on that particular day we'll just ignore the constitution". You can't build a truly free country without the rule of law.

> The fact that it wasn't is a completely different issue.

The War Measures Act was invoked in October 1970, replaced with the Public Order act in November 1970, which expired in April 1971.

The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson.

> They should certainly not be able to avoid prosecutions because "woops we decided that, on that particular day we'll just ignore the constitution".

The US has invoked martial law 68 times in its history, 29 of them for a labour[1] dispute (The WMA has only been invoked three times, and the Emergencies act, which references the trucker case has only been involved once).

The mechanism for just deciding to ignore the constitution is very similar in both countries[2], but one of them has invoked it a lot more frequently. And, as mentioned a few posts above, government repression doesn't even need any invocation of such acts.

[1] With that frequency, it should be pretty clear as to who the government sees as its real enemy.

[2] In the US, the 2007 National Defense Authorization act even gave this power directly, and unilaterally, to the President, but it did get overturned in 2008. Now, it's largely in the unilateral hands of state governors.

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

#165

Post by xattt » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 7:25 PM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #36

xattt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CRA is almost a separate entity from other federal departments, so it behaves like a private business than a government department. They aren’t even at the behest of the treasury board.

The CRA is its own department, like any other department. It is structured and operates just like any other government department as opposed to a private business. They are not at the behest of the Treasury Board because the Treasury Board is a committee, not an administration or agency. The board has no executive authority whatsoever and exists to give advice to Cabinet rather than to perform or execute a duty. Howe…

For one reason or another, collective agreements are signed directly between the CRA and employee unions. Collective agreements for other departments are signed with the Treasury Board. No other federal department with civilian jurisdiction holds this kind of exceptionalism.

Even the Canadian Coast Guard collective agreement is signed with the TBS.

I think these minor variations in corporate structure (or whatever you want to call it) embolden certain departments to go their own way, and forget their place in the whole of society.

See also the Canadian Mint copyrighting the penny.

(1) http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/09/20/a-cents-of-pride-royal-can...

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

#166

Post by 908B64B197 » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #164

908B64B197 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to that I say the perpetrators should be held accountable and prosecuted. The fact that it wasn't is a completely different issue. They should certainly not be able to avoid prosecutions because "woops we decided that, on that particular day we'll just ignore the constitution". You can't build a truly free country without the rule of law.

> The fact that it wasn't is a completely different issue. The War Measures Act was invoked in October 1970, replaced with the Public Order act in November 1970, which expired in April 1971. The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson. > They should certainly not be able to avoid prosecutions because…

> The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson.

They were caught in 1974. That doesn't mean (and Samson's testimony corroborated that) they didn't plant bombs or fake threats before. Ted Bundy wasn't caught the first time he murdered someone.

> but it did get overturned in 2008.

Thankfully, some still read the constitution.

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

#167

Post by idiotsecant » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 9:18 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #155

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get this from? The training of a drug dog would be one of the first things challenged in a criminal drug case and would terminal to establishing probable cause.

My information is EU (germany) based and was a general remark, not specific to those traffic controls (and whatever specific rules they have). Here what matters in court is, have drugs been found. If the cops think someone looks suspicious enough, they can search him. And if drugs were found, than this is all that matters in court, because obviously the cops were right with their suspicion if something was found. I d…

>Here what matters in court is, have drugs been found. If the cops think someone looks suspicious enough, they can search him. And if drugs were found, than this is all that matters in court,

That is entirely incorrect. German law follows a similar structure to the United States regarding the admissibility of evidence that was collected improperly. Evidence obtained in violation of the law, particularly by infringement of the privacy of the home or person, may be excluded from the trial if the violation is deemed to have a significant impact on the reliability of the evidence. The standard of probable cause in German law is known as "concrete indications of a specific criminal offense" (konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine bestimmte Straftat). It requires officials to have concrete indications that a specific criminal offense has been committed or is about to be committed before they can conduct a search or seizure.

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

#168

Post by vkou » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 9:30 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #166

vkou wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that it wasn't is a completely different issue. The War Measures Act was invoked in October 1970, replaced with the Public Order act in November 1970, which expired in April 1971. The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson. > They should certainly not be able to avoid prosecutions because…

> The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson. They were caught in 1974. That doesn't mean (and Samson's testimony corroborated that) they didn't plant bombs or fake threats before. Ted Bundy wasn't caught the first time he murdered someone. > but it did get overturned in 2008. Thankfully, some still…

Do you also think they kidnapped and murdered Pierre Laporte, which is what precipitated the use of the WMA? How far down does this conspiracy theory go, exactly? Are we just going to, without any evidence, blame everything on the RCMP boogieman?

> Thankfully, some still read the constitution.

Did you miss the second part of this equation, where martial law is still a thing, it can still be declared by state governors, and will happily suspend your rights?

The only thing that happened in the lead-up to 2007 and again in 2008 was a change to who can declare it.

That's the other problem with 'reading the US constitution'. It's not exactly clear on the subject of when it can be set aside. The 68 invocations of martial law make it crystal-clear that it can be set aside, and does get set aside whenever someone feels like it [1]. But you're not going to find a single word in the constitution that explains why, who, and in what circumstances it can be set aside.

At least the CORAF is clear as on the subject of what it takes to set it aside - an Act of Parliament, and which parts of it can be set aside (Sections 2, 7-15 - pretty much all the important bits, aside from elections, and language rights).

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

#169

Post by 908B64B197 » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #168

908B64B197 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson. They were caught in 1974. That doesn't mean (and Samson's testimony corroborated that) they didn't plant bombs or fake threats before. Ted Bundy wasn't caught the first time he murdered someone. > but it did get overturned in 2008. Thankfully, some still…

Do you also think they kidnapped and murdered Pierre Laporte, which is what precipitated the use of the WMA? How far down does this conspiracy theory go, exactly? Are we just going to, without any evidence, blame everything on the RCMP boogieman? > Thankfully, some still read the constitution. Did you miss the second part of this equation, where martial law is still a thing, it can still be declared by state governor…

> Do you also think they kidnapped and murdered Pierre Laporte, which is what precipitated the use of the WMA?

They apparently got a confession from the alleged murderer (of course, one might question a confession obtained while the suspect's constitutional rights were suspended) but couldn't even place him at the scene of the murder.

And let's be honest, once you admit to planting evidence, there's not a lot of credibility left...

> How far down does this conspiracy theory go, exactly?

People said the same thing about the lab leak hypothesis back in 2020.

> The only thing that happened in 2007 and 2008 was a change to who can declare it.

As with any law, let's see if it stands the test of courts.

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

#170

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #90

idiotsecant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Police dogs manufacturing search warrants is more of an American problem than a Canadian problem. You might have more rights on paper in the US, but in many respects, you have more of them in practice in Canada. The letter of the law matters…

> You might have more rights on paper in the US, but in many respects, you have more of them in practice in Canada.

Generally speaking in the US, the rights you have in practice (as opposed to on paper) are determined by how wealthy you are. Much like how we have the best health care in the world if you're wealthy, but the worst (among wealthy nations) if you aren't.