> 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 responsible for any damages you may experience as a result<p>I am not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if this holds water, legally speaking. Imagine going to an amusement park and signing a waiver that the park takes no responsibility for your injuries. 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. Getting someone to sign something that says "we did our due diligence" doesn't make it true.
If you pay attention to ToS's, you'll find companies are increasingly trying to pull stunts like this. The CRA's terms are objectionable, yet sadly benign compared to other reprehensible terms I've seen gating the web. Lawyers are copying each other's tactics and propogating dark patterns that I doubt will stand the test of litigation (but will cost some poor sap a lot of money and time to get there). Indemnity clauses are another one (no, I'm not going to reimburse you for damage if my account gets hacked through no fault of my own).<p>When I encounter clearly dodgy terms like this I often contact the organization and tell them I do not accept the given clause. Sometimes they say 'stop using our service' (rarely enforced) but most often they simply don't respond.<p>Someone at CRA with authority to fix this might perk up if thousands of Canadians start emailing them about it, report it to MP's, the Privacy Commissioner and other ombudsmen, etc.
Also noteworthy is that compared to leading commercial websites (Amazon, Facebook, etc.), the Canada Revenue Agency website: Responds an order of magnitude slower (like 3000 ms vs. 300 ms), and has maintenance downtime hours (instead of being up 24/7).<p>> However, the Internet is a public network and there is the remote possibility of data security violations.<p>They conveniently ignore the fact that HTTPS is pervasive and that you can reasonably carry private conversations on a public network. And why don't they have a disclaimer for the fact that the telephone network is public and the mail network is public?
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.<p>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 other contracting party and is bound to make reparation for the injury; neither he nor the other party may in such a case avoid the rules governing contractual liability by opting for rules that would be more favourable to them.<p><a href="https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/CCQ-1991?langCont=fr#se:1458" rel="nofollow">https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/CCQ-1991?l...</a><p>1474 A person may not exclude or limit his liability for material injury caused to another through an intentional or gross fault; a gross fault is a fault which shows gross recklessness, gross carelessness or gross negligence.
He may not in any way exclude or limit his liability for bodily or moral injury caused to another.<p>1475 A notice, whether posted or not, stipulating the exclusion or limitation of the obligation to make reparation for injury resulting from the nonperformance of a contractual obligation has effect, with respect to the creditor, only if the party who invokes the notice proves that the other party was aware of its existence at the time the contract was formed.<p>1476 A person may not by way of a notice exclude or limit his obligation to make reparation with respect to third persons; such a notice may, however, constitute disclosure of a danger<p>1477 The assumption of risk by the victim, although it may be considered imprudent having regard to the circumstances, does not entail renunciation of his remedy against the author of the injury.<p><a href="https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/CCQ-1991?langCont=fr#se:1474" rel="nofollow">https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/CCQ-1991?l...</a>
This government is so shoddily ran (leaving individual party politics aside) - Canadians aren't holding their government accountable. They're too busy trying to survive inflation and the knock-on effects it continues to cause, while distracting themselves with media that tells them "it's okay" and "it's not that bad"<p>Other boondoggled IT projects brought to you by the Canadian government include the Phoenix federal government paysystem - which coming up on a decade now, some federal employees _still_ aren't getting paid correctly, and the ArriveCan app - which is their hastily created, bug-filled app for pre-entry customs processing checklists that had accessibility problems for the disabled which have likely still been ignored, among other issues.<p>Between this and the very dodgy reactions from government officials (or lack thereof) to the recent news of foreign influence in our politics and elections processes from China, I would say this country has had its core emptied out and replaced with a nougat center of tasty corporate corruption and money laundering goodness.<p>The attitude seems to be "Not enough money to create and maintain a system that respects the privacy of our citizens, but we'll just legalese our responsibility away because we can and we're the government so _there_! We're like a silicon valley company, just try to sue us!"<p>At least we know that tax companies in the states are lobbying to make it harder to file taxes with the US government - the Canadian government just makes it more difficult by themselves!<p>I for one would like our government to be as responsible as possible when it comes to handling our data - ideally having as little of it as possible, only the required amounts to interact with me as minimally as possible - instead of having it all available in a portal that can be easily compromised and hacked judging from previous leaks/breaches in the linked article.
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.<p>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.
This is so typical of the Canadian government.<p>The effectivly FORCE you to use this site as they try to cut costs and reduce "call in" support.<p>Then, they create a ToS which absolves them of all responsibility if they are hacked?<p>I would be willing to bet that if any Canadian business tried this the government would crack down and state it not permitted.<p>The government has a tendency of "do as i say not as i do".<p>Any Canadian can tell you that for the most part government IT is utter garbage.<p><cough>arrive-can</cough><cough>Phoenix</cough><p>....
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?
This seems to be a recent change. It wasn't there last year: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20220418211009/https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/e-services-individuals/account-individuals/preview-account-terms-conditions-use.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20220418211009/https://www.canada...</a>
This wouldn't be such an issue, but the Canadian government wants to shut down any offices or public interactions with people and force everyone to online services to interact with basic government functions like paying your taxes.
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 <i>hurt</i> (more than being ridiculed on HN, or by a court).<p>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.
If you're forced to sign a contract and don't get to negotiate the terms, <i>and</i> it tries to do unusual things like that, it can be... pretty hard to enforce.
This will end badly when they do get hacked and people will suffer for it. I get that you don't want to be on the ball for it, but you're better of spending on annual security audits and ensuring any raised concerns are addressed in a reasonable time frame vs getting a few lawyers together to write something that says even if we "somehow" got hacked, we will not be liable we tried not to!<p>Nobody expects to be hacked until it happens.
They do the same thing in tenancy documents in some countries.<p>Basically an excuse to have the worst security and not be liable.<p>I don't know if it would hold if actual negligence was shown.
Certainly having a government agency able to force you to accept ToS like you'd see in the private sector is absurd since it lets the government skirt its own laws.<p>Feels like a "could the government do that" standard would be a good one to apply to any ToS when figuring out whether it's enforceable. Or maybe this is just more evidence that ToS should be generally and universally ruled unenforceable.
I guess Solar powered Game Boy would make for less attractive title.<a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnXDxp9pmUk/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=" rel="nofollow">https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnXDxp9pmUk/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M...</a>