[GTALUG] [OT] Phishing is no mirage...

[Russell Reiter]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 12:59 PM Dhaval Giani, <dhaval.giani at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:48 AM Russell Reiter via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 2:57 PM Alvin Starr via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/19 2:27 PM, Russell Reiter via talk wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> | I wonder why, especially in this data stealing age, the practice is
>>>> not firmly
>>>> | against the law?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  And the boundaries clearly marked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Its not that I was giving out my SIN voluntarily. It was a requirement
>>> of getting service from a telecom provider.
>>> Yes I could have refused to fill out the the application and walked out
>>> of the store.
>>> But then I would not have had the telecom service that I needed at the
>>> time.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 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.
>

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

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.


> 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?
>

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.

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.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/sin/reports/code-of-practice/section-2.html


> I would rather not blame the victim here, especially when the victim is a
> more vulnerable class that represented on this list.
>

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.

>
> Dhaval
>

--
Russell

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191218/3f9a4ed9/attachment.html>