<div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 12:59 PM Dhaval Giani, <<a href="mailto:dhaval.giani@gmail.com">dhaval.giani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:48 AM Russell Reiter via talk <<a href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk@gtalug.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 2:57 PM Alvin Starr via talk <<a href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">talk@gtalug.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
On 12/17/19 2:27 PM, Russell Reiter via talk wrote:<br>
[snip]<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
| I wonder why, especially in this data stealing age, the
practice is not firmly<br>
| against the law?<br>
<br>
Yes. And the boundaries clearly marked.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The problem is that its a matter of private law.
The government would essentially fetter itself if it actually
made it illegal for you to give out your SIN voluntarily. This
might be the case in settlement if someone has sued you, won
and now has the right to a full accounting of your income and
assets. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Enforcing laws is expensive and there is a
threshold which is bounded by economy of scale. As a general
matter of private law, caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is
the rule.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Its kind of like the government is a national
park with a grand canyon running through it. The can put up
signs which say don't get too close to the edge or you may
fall in but they can't really stop you from jumping off the
edge. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Its not that I was giving out my SIN voluntarily. It was a
requirement of getting service from a telecom provider.<br>
Yes I could have refused to fill out the the application and walked
out of the store.<br>
But then I would not have had the telecom service that I needed at
the time.<br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes you did volunteer the information when they asked for it. The law presumed you have a choice in the matter. There are enough providers who don't collect SIN numbers that you could have used one of them. You jumped into the canyon by wanting services immediately. There is an old saw that says decide in haste, repent at leisure. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Russell, I disagree with you here. When someone new to Canada comes over, they do not know what is true or not. I recall refusing to provide my SIN when I moved to Canada (because I was aware) to rogers, and I had to put in additional deposit (note, it was a deposit, but not an additional fee). If you were to have suggested teksavvy at that time, i would have laughed you away, because in the beginning I want something that is "bigger and therefore safer". The law is meant to protect the vulnerable, and folks who are new to Canada are probably the most vulnerable to predatory practices (simply because they don't know when they can or can not push back. They may also not have the financial resources to put in that bigger deposit that a service provider wants). You, Alvin, Hugh and I are in a group of people who understand their rights and are willing to psuh back. The newcomers are still learning, and this is a first bad impression they get of our country.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree that many newcomers face significant barriers through a lack of understanding of Canada's system of administrative law and the policies which underpin it. However, as much we would like to believe law concerns itself with vulnerable folks, that is not quite correct </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The principal concern of law is seen to be fairness. It achieves this in its own administration of Justice through a formal administrative process and the Courts of Justice. There are legal codes which directly apply to many vulnurable sectors of our society, as in the human rights code, but private contract law is a matter of trust and established equities. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>And, let's be honest. We do not do a good job of talking about why the SIN is important. You cannot have SIN used as identity as well as verification. How do I know when it is and it is not OK to give your SIN? Why do you need SIN as a proof of identity for a credit check? It can be an identifier, but give me some other "verification" means, which I control. Doesn't that take away a lot of issues that a SIN leak causes?</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You don't need a SIN for a credit check. I got a complete Transunion report even though I left it off the form I faxed to them.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As for finding out when you should and should not provide your SIN. This following web page is one signpost around that canyon of dangerous practices by others in business.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/sin/reports/code-of-practice/section-2.html">https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/sin/reports/code-of-practice/section-2.html</a></span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I would rather not blame the victim here, especially when the victim is a more vulnerable class that represented on this list.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nobody is blaming any victim here. I am only pointing out that all the available information I have seen to date indicates and backs up what I first learned when I got my original SIN: it is government policy, that it is a persons own responsibility to determine whether or not it is necessary to provide a SIN to any individual or business.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><div>Dhaval</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">--</div><div dir="auto">Russell</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>