[prvit]

I’ll offer a different take here.

More than 99% of the people whose information is listed in these registries are not corrupt public officials, Russian oligarchs, or [insert person you dislike here].

Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever.

[trompetenaccoun]

Why should business owners be anonymous? Honest or not is irrelevant, the public should be able to find out who owns those companies, be it a local restaurant or a giant multinational corporation that owns stores and property through 18 different holding companies.

[seydor]

depends on the business and the size i would say. Maybe for business with < 1M in assets should not be required to be public

[from]

Ironically businesses with more than 20 employees and 5 million in revenue are excluded from having to report ownership information in America (well, starting 2024).

[prvit]

> Why should business owners be anonymous?

Why not? Generally EU countries do not like public lists of PII, why should business owners be treated differently?

What legitimate use do you have for this information?

[shadowgovt]

Because they're stewarding private resources that would otherwise be public (such as land) and therefore the public has an interest in them.

[prvit]

Most companies probably do not own resources like land.

What actual use do you have for this information? Beyond “it’s nice to know”?

Is it not sufficient that you have a service address for the legal entity in case you need to sue it?

[shadowgovt]

Land was an example, not an exclusive example.

A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells. And most legal actions against such abuse generally start grassroots; regulators aren't aware there's a problem until people complain.

Hiding information from the public makes it harder to notice abuse.

Flip the script: when an individual has incorporated and is enjoying the legal protections of being a corporate entity, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society?

[prvit]

When an individual has registered a car and is enjoying the right to operate a 6000 lbs death machine on public roads, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society?

The real question you have to answer is “Why is it necessary for company ownership to be public information?”

> A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells

What’s wrong here? Even with a perfect UBO registry that private owner could just get together with a couple of their buddies and divvy up that 70%.

What legal action are you going to take? Owning 70% of a town’s resources is generally not against the law.

[arisAlexis]

Most people are not ill why need hospitals? Most people are not criminals why need police?

[7952]

The legitimate purpose is choosing to not trade with a company owned by a particular person. And that facility should be open to anyone without having to jump through hoops.

[prvit]

I really can’t see how your interest in not doing business with companies owned by people you like could possibly outweigh every business owners privacy interests.

[eurasiantiger]

What if the $business is owned by Mark Zuckerberg?

[miohtama]

- To keep politicians in check

- To check for conflicts of interest

- To prevent corruption

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-o...

[arisAlexis]

The legitimate use is described in the article

[oytis]

Running a company is pretty much a public activity. Why protect the privacy of the rich and powerful (relatively to those who don't run any companies) few while compromising anti-corruption measures.

[troad]

Most companies are one man shops, or small businesses. In certain countries (looking at you, Greece) it’s the only economic way to be a contractor or self-employed. Hardly the “rich and powerful”.

Disclosing their personal information seems like an incredibly poorly targeted policy, motivated by little more than the misconception that you’re hurting the “rich and powerful”, when you’re just hurting the middle class and adding yet another barrier to people trying to start businesses (already stupidly difficult in most of Europe).

[seydor]

they are not solely for rich and powerful. it s cheap to make a company and for many remote workers its the most sane way to be paid, because tax laws are insanely backwards. The secrecy of UBO is a weird concept though, i agree

[oytis]

Yes, I understand that, but they are also probably not the kind of people who would like their identity hidden. Acting in public while staying anonymous is creating a power disbalance. It can be justified in some cases, like for activists or journalists facing a greater power disbalance, but I can't imagine a good reason for economic activity (other than purely personal consumption) to stay private.

[prvit]

Why is it any more of a public activity than working for a company?

[sam_lowry_]

It is kind of obvious, no?

[prvit]

Not at all. A company could be a one man shop which only does business with one other company, it’s not obvious why that would be more of a public activity than just being directly employed by a company.

[ghusto]

I'll go further and say they do bugger all to stop corruption. The rich will continue to find their loopholes and dodgy accountants. I know because I've worked for them. Pass all the laws you want, it's not going to effect them.

What they _do_ achieve however is getting your name irreversibly splattered around just for helping a charity as a "board member".

[TacticalCoder]

I'm 100% with you here.

People who need access to the UBO (for example because they are required, by law, to do KYC/AML on their customers) can still access it.

It's about restricting public access.

> Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever.

This.

[from]

Very little verification of UBO registers ever actually occurs. Which is why "oligarchs" have nominees and having to lie on another government form doesn't make a difference.

[miohtama]

There is clear evidence public registries are one of the most powerful tools to fight corruption:

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-o...

[EdwardDiego]

LLCs impose social costs when they go into liquidation, I feel like there's some concessions to be made.

[MildlySerious]

I think there are valid concerns, generally speaking, but I for my own selfish reasons prefer to have the option of keeping my information private.

I have no interest in being a public person, to any degree whatsoever. Not because I want to do shady things, but because there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away.

Creating a successful business is fundamentally connected to publicity, and if I succeed in creating publicity for my product/business/company I inevitably create publicity for myself. As things are those two things are inseparably connected. I personally hate it.

This is a far fetched, but the thought that someone innovates or creates something of value, and the payback may be that people want to kill them or kidnap their family because it happens to be a vaccine, or paparazzi hound them for the rest of their life because the media wants to cash in on them just sucks.

While I of course don't expect any of that to ever happen to me, I have thought about what if it happens. If someone is not willing to take that risk their only alternative is to be someone else's workhorse until retirement. It seems like a really bad and arbitrary filter (not the only one by any means) for who is and isn't able to take a shot at building something for themselves.

It doesn't really make sense to me that your willingness to give up your privacy is this connected to one of the biggest decisions you can make in life to grow and build meaningful stuff.

[7952]

I think a lot of the need for public disclosure is tied up with the benefits you get from starting a business. Perhaps the default should be for people to do more as private citizens rather than working through a company. Place more limits on what is a legitimate use for a business. But also make it easier for individuals to trade.

[jtsuken]

How nice you brought up the vaccine example.

So would you like to a live in a country where the government can mandate a vaccine and you have no way to find out who owns the VAXXPROD company, whose vaccines are mandated? What if the owner by pure coincidence is the nice of the Vax Minister?

On the other hand, how will John Doe's privacy be affected if it was public information that he owns Flush Pty Ltd, as long as Flush Pty Ltd is not doing anything of public interest?

Obviously, would get into the realm of public interest if John Doe also owned Flush-A, Flush-B, ... Flush-Z Pty Ltds, and these were purportedly competing for the tenders to install toilets in the City Council Building. Or would you rather keep this information private?

[MildlySerious]

Your questions address a completely different part of this conversation that I acknowledged, but specifically clarified wasn't what I was commenting on. The moral dilemmas that may be hiding in this change are already discussed elsewhere in the thread.

[jtsuken]

"there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away..."

Your words, correct?

My claim is that whenever you do something of high consequence, it is safer for you and the society to have your privacy taken away. (or the link between whatever you do and your name be public knowledge)

*The vaccine produced by an anonymous scientist*

*The car crashtest and certification site operated by an anonymous owner*

*The airplane designed by an anonymous engineer*

Talking about airplanes. An air traffic controller in Switzerland is a largely anonymous job. But after causing an aviation accident (a rather high-consequence deed) it would have been safer for the controller, if he and the police assumed that the air traffic controller's name and location were public knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitaly_Kaloyev

The information that John Doe operates XYZ Pty Ltd does not affect their privacy too much, but if either John Doe or XYZ do or even consider doing something of high consequence, they better know that the link is public.

there are objectively no advantages to having the link between your name and your high-impact activity be hidden.

[MildlySerious]

I was referring to my own interests - as the one who would be losing his privacy - not the consequences for society. I made that very clear in the first sentence of my OG comment. There are no advantages to me losing my privacy. That is, me specifically. Not individuals in general. Me. As I was saying from the start.

The discussion you seemingly want to have you can have plenty of times elsewhere in the thread, so why instead ignore everything I said and pivot the conversation to the one thing I said multiple times now wasn't what I was talking about?

It is perfectly valid and I appreciate that you want to talk about the bigger picture of this change, and how it affects different aspects of society. That conversation should go along with conversations about individual experiences and expectations and interests, not happen in their stead.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

Financial regulators and police access to such registers should be enough.

[seydor]

It's like CSAM scanning