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

111–120 of 192 posts

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

#111

Post by jonahrd »

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…

One of the biggest problems is Canada is the assumption of country wide immunity from systemic issues because "it's worse in the States". This prevents lots of real change from happening and allows lots of really bad laws to exist.

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

#112

Post by alexandre_m »

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.

We have to fill 2 tax reports.

- Provincial: Revenu Quebec

- Federal: CRA

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

#113

Post by kmoser »

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…

> ...or any manual process to monitor or copy the content contained in any online services"

So, not allowed to use Ctrl+C on their website?

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

#114

Post by posguy »

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?

Only in states that permit CBP to operate inland checkpoints. California banned the practice a few decades ago, you can see where the CBP used to operate checkpoints between San Diego and Los Angeles as you drive north along the freeway.

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

#115

Post by tchvil »

posguy wrote: post #13
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…

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…

What was the reddit post about?

It is now:

Hey u/misanthrope2327, thanks for contributing to r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:

Rule 2 - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony.

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

#116

Post by wirrbel »

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…

What is overpriced for an insurance? people pay their fees and get damage compensation in case of a successful claim. So an insurance can be overpriced if the compensation is way lower than the fees on average (administrative overhead or extracted profit from the insurance provider) and then of course you can hold the opinion that the insurance's coverage is too hight, which also leads to higher fees to begin with.

Anyway, you can pretty sure simply analyse this with the business data.

If you make a poll you'll just poll for the public sentiment. And frankly "the tax is too damn high" can be heard everywhere pretty much regardless of the taxes.

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

#117

Post by liketochill »

chkaloon wrote: post #14
kenned3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, normally the government in Canada can be sued for this sort of thing. not exactly the same thing, but this is a $500,000 class action lawsuit for losing a USB Key containing patient data: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/05/28/durham_region_he... The expectation is that the government protect your privacy or pay if they fail to do so.. as with any private data.

But the government is financed by taxpayers, so the taxpayers will end up being the payers of any fines the government is liable for. It's circular.

Only if all taxpayers get an equal settlement. And even then perhaps that money would have been spent on another group: “sorry no fighter jets this year money went privacy lawsuits”. So some taxpayers could come out ahead in the event of privacy lawsuits.

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

#118

Post by hutzlibu »

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…

"Drug dogs"

Fun fact: Most police "drug dogs" you see in public are actually normal dogs, because "drug dogs" are quite expensive and can only be put to service for a limited time (and they stress out with lots of noise and people). But if the people think the dog is a drug dog, then their reaction is often telling enough.

(but I don't know, if they do this in canada to get the "allows further intervention", but this is usually a grey area anyway)

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

#120

Post by chaosite »

kmoser wrote: post #113
pcthrowaway wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> ...or any manual process to monitor or copy the content contained in any online services" So, not allowed to use Ctrl+C on their website?

You're not allowed to write things down on a notebook using a pencil.
Post reply on HN