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

171–180 of 192 posts

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

#171

Post by vkou »

908B64B197 wrote: post #169
vkou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cred…

> 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...

The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murder, not that they killed him.

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

'People' also say smoking doesn't cause cancer, marijuana causes reefer madness, and that Bigfoot is real. 'People' believe and say all sorts of stupid things. You're going to need a better argument.

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

The application of martial law in the US has already stood the test of 68 invocations. How many more invocations are you going to need before you are convinced of the basic fact that the US constitution can and has been suspended during states of emergency?

And you're pointing fingers at Canada for invoking the WMA three times, and the Emergencies act once? [1]

This is a completely ridiculous double standard. Please open your eyes.

[1] When the Canadian CORAF has explicit, clear provisions for when those kinds of acts can be invoked, and by whom?

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

#172

Post by 908B64B197 »

vkou wrote: post #171
908B64B197 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cred…

> 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... The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murde…

> The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murder, not that they killed him.

"No, your honor, we planted evidence on a different black man. No this one we really did find evidence. Just trust us".

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

#173

Post by cscurmudgeon »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #86
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).

But, does it? > mitigation of indirect damage caused by drivers But, private insurance covers that. > through public services Examples?

Edit: Of course, this is downvoted. Can't question the god that is the govt.

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

#174

Post by mthoms »

goodcanadian wrote: post #124
int_19h wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s similar to my experience. For the couple claims I’ve had, the process has been flawless with ICBC. Not so for my extended family in Ontario.

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

#175

Post by mthoms »

rkagerer wrote: post #156
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).

You don't need to compare to other countries; there's a big difference simply compared to other provinces. Here's my own anecdata: I lived in Ontario where insurance was easy. A variety of private companies offered competitive rates, and I renewed every year by simply phoning my insurer or broker and giving them my credit card number. When I moved to BC, my rate didn't change by much. But the rest of the experience g…

My experience has been the opposite. I’m generally happier here with auto insurance than I was in Ontario.

Regarding the ICBC add-on for US liability… aren’t all ICBC policies exclusively sold by independent brokers? If true then wouldn’t that have been an independent broker who was mistaken and ICBC proper cleared it up?

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

#176

Post by vkou »

908B64B197 wrote: post #172
vkou wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murde…

> The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murder, not that they killed him. "No, your honor, we planted evidence on a different black man. No this one we really did find evidence. Just trust us".

Good thing that courts usually don't operate on one side saying 'just trust us', and everyone going home.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all you have is... Well, not even any circumstantial evidence, it's just conjecture. Just 'they could have done it, so they did it!'.

Just because things may not have turned out one way doesn't mean that you can come in and insist that they actually turned out a different, particular way - without anything to support it. And then base the rest of your argument on that.

(This is also a complete tangent.)

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

#177

Post by mthoms »

908B64B197 wrote: post #159
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…

> 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 a…

Your comment is full of exaggerations and factual errors. For liquor, every province is different. Some have government owned liquor shops while others have independent stores. Some have a combination.

Government run car insurance only exists in two or three provinces. It’s the exception, not the rule.

The CBC is not “on government payroll”. It’s run independently but government funded. If you’ve got significant evidence of political parties interfering in the CBC’s reporting I’d love to hear it.

I’m not sure why you singled out Canadas first black, female, Governor General as being a problem. The GG’s role is a ceremonial, public facing, non-political role that perfectly suits someone well known who’s adept at public speaking. She’s not even the first former journalist to get the posting. Others were famous astronauts, military heroes or business leaders.

While there’s some truth in what you say (health care is in a real pickle, the dairy board is just bizarre) the rest is textbook right-wing propaganda.

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

#178

Post by hutzlibu »

idiotsecant wrote: post #167
hutzlibu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 infringeme…

Yes, that is wrong "than this is all that matters in court". There are some exceptions though, like with tax evasion, then illegal evidence was excepted, but in general you are right.

Still, in case of the dog: it would be interesting, if there was a case about it, as I am very sure of the practice in reality.

Police will do, what works and with what they can get away. Most people will just comply when the police tells them to open their pockets (note that they don't have to articulate it as an order, the same if police comes to your door without a warrant and they ask if they can come in) assuming the police has the right. (and drug addicts usually do not have a lawer).

I don't know if it would hold up in court as a justification for searching, that a person looked nervous because of a police dog as the person just could have fear of dogs in general, so they likely would avoid it.

(Also, if you happen to live within 30 km of a nation border like me, then police (Zoll) can search pockets and cars all the time without concrete indications. So they could use this tactic without problems, but I have never seen the Zoll doing it, but the normal police in the cities)

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

#179

Post by seanmcdirmid »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #147
sekh60 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am Canadian, living in Canada and I really hate this. We constantly compare ourselves to the States. Why can't we compare to a country more with aspiring to? Like one of the Nordics?

Canada is bigger, way more diverse, has way more population, and is structurally, historically, and culturally similar to the US. And speaking as someone who has lived or worked in a couple of those countries: it ain't all rainbows and cupcakes. Denmark ain't exactly crazy about foreigners, plus there was just an article here about how ruthless they are with data surveillance. There isn't a huge market, jobs are tigh…

> Denmark ain't exactly crazy about foreigners

7.5% of people in Denmark are foreign born, which isn’t as high as Canada’s 23%, but isn’t that far from the USA’s 13%.

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

#180

Post by nottathrowaway3 »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #97
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…

> If you climb aboard a rollercoaster that hasn't seen any maintenance in 20 years and you get decapitated, I'm pretty sure the park is still legally responsible > "any script, robot, spider, Web crawler, screen scraper, automated query program or other automated device or any manual process to monitor or copy the content contained in any online services" But the CRA already anticipated this and explicitly disallowed…

Not a Canadian, but this just seems like a chicken running around with its head cut off [1]. A one-legged duck swimming in a circle.

Why does a government want to protect itself from hacking liability via ToS in the first place. Couldn't they, you know, just pass a law saying they're not liable?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken

Post reply on HN