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

101–110 of 192 posts

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

#101

Post by earleybird »

tenpies wrote: post #67
bawolff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

Personal experience, once received a notification from CRA to the effect: "6 months ago we refunded you incorrectly, you owe us, oh by the way we're also charging you a penalty for our mistake.". The amount was not inconsequential but not a problem to remedy. The insult was "we made a mistake and we are punishing you for it".

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

#102

Post by Teever »

epgui wrote: post #70
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…

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.

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

#103

Post by everforward »

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…

36 states and DC have strict liability for dog bites. For most the only exceptions are if the person was trespassing when they were bitten, if they were provoking the dog, or it's a police/military dog doing its job. Some of those states have carve outs where they only have liability for expenses if they didn't know the dog was dangerous (I'm presuming that means no emotional/punitive damages).

Doesn't matter what precautions the person took, if the dog gets out and bites another person, they're liable in most states.

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

#104

Post by bee_rider »

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…

On top of this, I don’t see how a contract that you are compelled to agree to in order to do your taxes could be seen as one that you’ve willingly entered.

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

#105

Post by JeremyBanks »

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.

[dead]

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

#106

Post by int_19h »

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…

The biggest problem in Canada is that whole "notwithstanding" backdoor in the Charter. And it's not even a hypothetical concern, given how it's been used in e.g. Quebec.

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

#107

Post by int_19h »

InitialLastName wrote: post #60
Jensson wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that basic insurance is extremely overpriced compared to similar insurances in other countries, and it is mandatory so you have to pay it.

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 this because people effectively vote on many different issues as a batch, so a few hot-button issues can dominate everything else in practice, making it impossible to interpret the outcome as a mandate for a particular policy unless it was one of those hot-button issues.)

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

#108

Post by int_19h »

mulmen wrote: post #9
kenned3 wrote: post #3

This is so typical of the Canadian government. The effectivly FORCE you to use this site as they try to cut costs and reduce "call in" support. Then, they create a ToS which absolves them of all responsibility if they are hacked? I would be willing to bet that if any Canadian business tried this the government would crack down and state it not permitted. The government has a tendency of "do as i say not as i do". Any…

> 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.

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

#109

Post by Retric »

everforward wrote: post #103
Retric wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

36 states and DC have strict liability for dog bites. For most the only exceptions are if the person was trespassing when they were bitten, if they were provoking the dog, or it's a police/military dog doing its job. Some of those states have carve outs where they only have liability for expenses if they didn't know the dog was dangerous (I'm presuming that means no emotional/punitive damages). Doesn't matter what pr…

Interesting, my state is not on that list.

But that 36 state list includes many exceptions. Provocation is an exception in the majority of those 36 states, and trespassing is almost universally an exception. Nebraska excludes harm cases when the dog is being playful etc.

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

#110

Post by jszymborski »

preinheimer wrote: post #98
matbilodeau wrote: post #75

Fortunately, contracts in Quebec are dependent of the Civil Code. Terms of service match the definition of a contract. I am eager to see if such practices by any level of government will pass the test of tribunals and current jurisprudence. Excerpts : 1458 Every person has a duty to honour his contractual undertakings. Where he fails in this duty, he is liable for any bodily, moral or material injury he causes to the…

People in Quebec deal with Revenue Quebec for both provincial and federal taxes, the CRA website won’t affect them.

That's just not true. Federal taxes are filed with the CRA for QC citizens.
Post reply on HN