[kmod]

I think it's fascinating that when the topic is "shell companies" that the HN discourse is essentially "if they have nothing to hide then they don't need secrecy". I think that if the article were about linking "tor users" with their secret owners then we would see the opposite stance being taken.

I'm not taking a position here, and I'm not saying even that these stances are necessarily contradictory, but just that the blanket argument "X shouldn't get to be secret because I don't think they have a legitimate reason" doesn't differentiate between these two cases.

[sealeck]

I think privacy is really about power – we think the individual deserves privacy because it protects their personal autonomy from either corporate or state abuse. My view is that privacy is important because it's a prerequisite for self-expression – it's not just "oh you might have something to hide", it's that if you are watched/monitored then your behaviour will change.

Why is this different when it comes to corporations? First, some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) argue that limited liability is a privilege because it provides extensive legal protection for those undertaking a venture. With that privilege come certain responsibilities and duties, one of which is non-anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it deters bad behaviour which is another reason to justify this.

Second, I think it's _really_ hard to argue that being able to have an anonymous, offshore shell corporation is essential for your self expression. Especially not when you are using it to hide large amounts of money. In fact, this infringes upon other people's right to self expression by depriving the state of funding that it would use to provide services to them such as education, subsidising the arts, etc.

There's a good piece in the New Yorker which explores exactly this question: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/why-the-privac...

[mistrial9]

> non-anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it deters bad behaviour which is another reason to justify this.

that goes both ways .. tax collection, arbitrary and capricious enforcement of regulation, scrutiny-as-punishment .. these things are as old as cities

[sealeck]

I think this is usually a problem which is more easily solved by better funding tax authorities and installing better oversight rather than by making it easier for people to not pay tax.

I think most people's tax affairs are pretty clear-cut to assess (e.g. if you are an individual earning an income or run a small business). People who structure their tax affairs in convoluted ways where it becomes non-trivial to work out what the correct amount of tax they should be paying is (or even a question which can't really be answered until you are in caught) generally have a lot of money or are trying something stupid (e.g. trying to pay yourself your salary as a loan through an offshore company where the tax authority are obviously going to think this is illegal, see https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/barrowman_fraud).

[skinkestek]

Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation to fundraise for causes they wanted to fundraise for.

The way they do it has been tried all the way to the top here and everyone agree it is legal.

They still lost all their contracts, again[1], after media found out and made a fuzz about the fact that nobody took out salaries but transferred the profit to causes they identified with. Media even pointed out that it was legal, but, big orgs don't care: they do whatever it takes to get media away.

[1]: yes, this isn't the first time.

[sealeck]

I really can't comment here because it seems like there are a million possible details that could make this either something very illegal or a miscarriage of justice.

[skinkestek]

It was in all the papers. Went through all instances, all the way to the relevant department.

But of course there is nothing in Norwegian law that that denies people the right to donate their share, as long as every other law is followed.

Which is why last time media even pointed it out in cleartext the article: everything is legal.

They just wrote the article in the style of a criminal investigation anyway and askes big companies questions the same way they would have done with if they were caught dealing with russian mobsters.

That way they can point to the fact that they have informed about it while still destroying the marked for someone they don't like.

(Sorry, English is nit my first language.)

[veqz]

Hyggelig om du forteller hvilken sak det faktisk er, siden jeg ikke kjenner den igjen fra beskrivelsen din.

Nice if you could tell which specific story this is, since I can't recognize it from your description.

[skinkestek]

(English below.) Desverre kan jeg ikke si det uten å doxxe meg selv.

Men ja, det dreiar seg om eit norsk AS som var oppretta berre for å subsidiere ei hjartesak.

Litt som Dinamo reklamebyrå som ble opprettet som en mer effektiv måte å skaffe penger til Stabæk (kjent fra "Ona Fyr"-boka som var innmari populær for noen år siden), bare i mindre skala.

(Orsak for blandinga av nynorsk og bokmål, det er berre eit ein måte å lage ein sjibollet så ingen tek meg for å vere ein utanlandsk påverkningsagent med Google Translate :-)

---

Sadly I cannot say more without doxxing myself.

But yes, it was a Norwegian AS (Ltd?) created for the sole purpose of financing something they cared about.

A bit like Dinamo, a Norwegian advertising agency that was created by fans of the Stabæk football club (and made famous by the much hyped book Ona Fyr a few years ago), just at a smaller scale.

(Sorry for my mix of Nynorsk and Bokmål above, it is mh attempt at creating a shibbolet so Norwegians don't take me for a foreigner with Google Translate :-)

[doktrin]

If it’s a well known case feel free to share it, otherwise you’re just editorialising an unverifiable anecdote.

[skinkestek]

Sadly, as I have outlined in my reply to the other question (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926847) I am afraid of doxxing myself if I say more about this.

But, without me being a legal expert in any way, shape or form, my feeling is it is relatively similar to the "Fjordteam" case from Sandefjord a few years ago:

Different owners, different jobs, but operated by volunteers who looked for a nore efficient (and healthier :-) way to finance their activities instead of the traditional Norwegian "cake raffle" ("kakelotteri")

[filoleg]

> Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation

Did you mean "moonlight"? Asking because when I hear "a moonshine operation to fundraise for causes", I imagine something akin to an alcohol-themed Breaking Bad storyline

[skinkestek]

You are of course right :-)

[tech_ken]

Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. I'm fine with someone using Tor to circumvent like a national content ban, I'm not fine with someone using a shell-corp to evade trust regulation or hide their involvement with a shady industry.

> "X shouldn't get to be secret because I don't think they have a legitimate reason" doesn't differentiate between these two cases.

It does differentiate because what constitutes a 'legitimate reason' for having privacy is extremely different between the contexts. An individual human has much more latitude for seeking privacy than a chunk of capital given legal status by a contract, IMO.

[monkpit]

> Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.

US case law has entered the chat.

[tcmart14]

I don't necessarily think its the "nothing to hide" argument, even though it gets presented as that. Its more of frustration that privacy in the corporate world seems to have a lot more protections than the every day normal person world. The argument given for the average person is, "nothing to hide." Now it is just the normal person saying, well if that argument is sufficient for us, its sufficient for them. If it isn't, then the rules for us need to change.

[thuuuomas]

The identity of public entities is a matter of public interest where the identity of private individuals is not?

[spacebanana7]

Some people say that about websites.

Sounds good in theory, but we all know a true public record of the stuff would be mined by scammers, law enforcement, recruiters and lawyers.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>> The identity of public entities is a matter of public interest where the identity of private individuals is not?

> Some people say that about websites.

The individuals visiting those sites would be reasonable candidates for privacy. What the websites do as a public entity would be subject to public scrutiny.

[dantheman]

For instance, who donated to NAACP during the civil rights era right?

[WarOnPrivacy]

>> The identity of public entities is a matter of public interest where the identity of private individuals is not?

> For instance, who donated to NAACP during the civil rights era right?

Those individuals should not be a matter of public interest - yes. Was there a different point you are trying to make?

[cogman10]

I'm more interested in who donated to the George Wallace campaign.

And frankly, if revealing that sort of information to the public means less donations, I'm pretty fine with that as an outcome. The fact is, corporations can buy politicians/judges and that's a way bigger issue than the privacy of millionaires.

[EdwardDiego]

Limited liability companies were created to allow risk-taking in business. They impose a social cost when they fail, but it's one we accept because the ability to have a crack at creating a business, without being personally bankrupted if it fails, creates more economic activity [0].

However, it doesn't mean we have to accept their usage for tax evasion or money laundering.

[0]: Caveats - depending on your jurisdiction, don't trade while insolvent, don't personally guarantee business loans or leases.

[jmoss20]

To be fair, I don't think the rationale is really "if they have nothing to hide...". More something having to do with whether privacy is something that should come along with the legal arrangement of, say, an LLC.

> just that the blanket argument "X shouldn't get to be secret because I don't think they have a legitimate reason" doesn't differentiate between these two cases.

Not only these cases -- that argument won't differentiate between any cases ;-).

Better I think to make sure we really understand the arguments being made. Good chance the real argument isn't quite _that_ bad.

[tgv]

Companies aren’t people.

[BadHumans]

I'm people. I had a secret LLC I was doing contracting out of because I didn't want my companies'address out there easily. My companies' address being my house.

[pjdesno]

Privacy is a human right. An LLC is not a human - granting it privacy rights is a choice which a government may make for practical reasons, not a moral issue.

One of those practical reasons would be the use you put it to; that reason might be outweighed by widespread use of the same mechanism to shield wrongdoing.

[ChadNauseam]

Here we're talking about the privacy of the owner of the LLC, not of the LLC itself. In particular, the owner wants "what LLCs they own" to be private.

[pjdesno]

To be flip about it, I'd like a pony, too.

More seriously, merely because someone wants ownership of an LLC to be private doesn't mean it ought to be.

[kasey_junk]

But that’s the op’s point. “Just because someone wants their browsing habits/pay amount/address/sexual preferences/etc private doesn’t mean it ought to be.”

Is just as meaningful a sentence and the contrast in tone on hn when it comes to one type of privacy technology (vpn/tor/etc) and another (shell companies) does seem more visceral than logical.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

the constitution does not give you a right to a pony.

It does give you a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone". These include the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right

[EdwardDiego]

It differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in my one (NZ) you can use your lawyer or accountant as registered office address and address for service. So long as they hold a copy of the share register and other company documents should anyone wish to use their legal right to inspect your share register (it's an old clause, as share registers are also publicly available online now).

[crtasm]

Is it not an option to use one of those services that gives you a business address to use? e.g. you hear of hundreds of companies all registered to a single small office somewhere.

[nickpp]

When I set up my LLC I used all available ways to protect my name and address.

No reason really, but I guess growing up hearing my grandparents stories about the communist take-over of our country taught me what happens when you are a target because you are publicly linked to your wealth.

[and0]

I also have an LLC for software and didn't love having to put my address, since I don't have a storefront or anything either, but I don't think it reveals any more info than someone could find from having your name in the first place.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I'm people. I had a secret LLC.

Your LLC is intangible. It can't do people-y things like shake my hand.

Intangible IP would be something else that isn't people - we're just less confused about that.

[czbond]

In the future, you can proxy the address via a registered agent.

[dghlsakjg]

You can rent a mailbox or hire a registered agent for exactly this purpose for trivial amounts of money.

[mistrial9]

In California, Federal Post Office boxes were not renewed one year after a Federal election year.. "surprise" you need to re-apply for your box.. including details of your automobile registration ? home address of course.. It just so happens there are majority $RACE workers at this Post Office.. walking out of the office is an ordinary middle-class man who is also $RACE .. a quick conversation confirms that the Post Office worker had simply accepted the monthly payment from that man instead of a full review. Similarly-aged middle class man of not-$RACE gets the complete review? yes. true story in the US West Coast

[alwa]

Is the implication here that the feds didn’t already know who leased that post office box from them? And that they don’t have access to state DMV records?

What do you intend for me to infer from your assertion that one individual’s inferred race is more important to a postal worker than that specific individual’s identity or existing relationship with the post office in this case?

And where in the US do post office box rentals last longer than a year? I wasn’t aware that it was possible to lease one for more than 12 months at a go [0]

Are you familiar with Mail Covers? [1]

[0] https://www.usps.com/manage/po-boxes.htm

[1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/reports/audit-reports/postal-inspect...

[dghlsakjg]

So someone that isn’t your race went in to a post office make a monthly payment and wasn’t identified, and you went in to make a yearly contract renewal and they identified you using another piece of paper from the government?

Maybe the other man had already had his identity verified when he renewed, or was not doing what you think he was.

Maybe you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn’t one.

Maybe you could have used a bill or any piece of paper with your real address on it if you had asked what other pieces of paper would work.

Maybe I don’t for a minute believe that this is the full story.

Also, you can rent a private mailbox from any of the thousands of places that offer one if you so desire, and not deal with the post office.

[wnevets]

> I think that if the article were about linking "tor users" with their secret owners then we would see the opposite stance being taken.

Companies aren't people.

[diego_sandoval]

They aren't people in the same way that families aren't people, countries aren't people and football clubs aren't people.

[paulddraper]

But their owners are.

Company = Tor client

Owner = Operator

[wnevets]

but their owners don't share the same liability as the company. The entire reason the concept of companies exist is to create a separate entity that isn't a person.

To put it another way when a company breaks the law should its shareholders (aka owners) go to prison?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> To put it another way when a company breaks the law should its shareholders (aka owners) go to prison?

Forfeiting dividends+penalty that were the product of illegal or negligent corporate practices seems like a reasonable start.

Stated more broadly: As far as investing in unethical and anti-consumer practices is a winner now - society would be better served if the opposite were true.

[logifail]

> To put it another way when a company breaks the law should its shareholders (aka owners) go to prison?

The governing body of a corporation isn't its shareholders.

If you're asking what happens if a company breaks the law, then look up VW Dieselgate. Yes, some executives were prosecuted; yes, some of them went to jail.

I'm not sure what (company) shareholders have to do with this.

[wnevets]

> I'm not sure what (company) shareholders have to do with this.

The comment I replied to said this in reply to my original comment.

> But their owners are.

Shareholders are the owners, not executives.

[logifail]

> Companies aren't people.

Umm, in many jurisdictions they are [almost]:

"In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued. Granting non-human entities personhood is a Western concept applied to corporations."

https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...

https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-pe...

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

[wnevets]

> a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

A person has rights other than to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

[logifail]

> A person has rights other than to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued

Indeed.

In the context of this thread, how are those other rights relevant?

[wnevets]

> In the context of this thread, how are those other rights relevant?

That a company isn't a person. We know this because a person has rights a company doesn't.

[logifail]

> That a company isn't a person. We know this because a person has rights a company doesn't

It would appear that this view is not widespread:

"In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' (less ambiguously, any legal entity) that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on. The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are "persons" legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not people in a literal sense (human beings)."

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

[998244353]

IMO this is a red herring. A corporation's right to hold property, enter into contracts and to sue or be sued might be technically called "corporate personhood", but this is very different from what laypeople mean when they compare companies and people.

[cogman10]

Because corporate shell companies have political sway.

I'm happy to grant any corporation all the privacy they desire IF we had campaign finance and lobbying laws that prevented the corporations from interacting with politicians (At least, not without a significant barrier, IE, only being able to talk to a third party and getting criminal charges if they try and give them money).

The issue is money can buy sway. We saw this with Disney and copyright law becoming long and longer with more strict enforcement.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

This I can agree with. Its a simple solution: An update to campaign finance law to US law that only entities with a US passport may donate to politicians.

This would need to also a law otherwise it would fail to pass the court system.

I don't think politicians would ever pass this law, which tells you exactly what you need to know. However, you could probably get referendum support for it.

Actually, maybe a law would not need to be passed. You could force a change in rules to require the US passport # for every donor to match the name of the donor itself. It would make corporations disappear from the rolls, similar to what happened when the IRS required the SSN of dependents in the 1040.

[derekam]

Yeah, my only use of this post was to see if there was anything I could get my business removed from in the tools listed. I just don’t like people knowing where I live; various past experiences have made me hypervigilant about this. It isn’t hard to track someone down with a state and sufficiently uncommon full name.

“As soon as you run a business or have more than $X you have no right to privacy” is a position a bizarre number of otherwise normal people have, though never stated in those terms.

[9dev]

I have no clue how it is in the US, but can’t you simply set up a post office box to register your business?

[IggleSniggle]

I don't share the position you describe, but I don't think it's particularly bizarre in a capitalist society. When capital is very directly connected to the power you wield over everyone else, it's not unreasonable to wish to know the identity of the people that "control your fate." It's just the natural tension between the power of the people and the power of the wallet.

[dietmtnview]

It's absolutely wild that you're equating the rights of a person to the rights of a corporation. Corporations impact all of us whereas a person using a VPN to remain anonymous is protecting themselves from corporations.

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

[logifail]

> It's absolutely wild that you're equating the rights of a person to the rights of a corporation.

What about a one-person corporation?*

* I know that in some jurisdictions you need more than one, but let's not jump on that... Big business this isn't

[BLKNSLVR]

Similar to golergka's commentaary (currently) above, I don't think your comparisons are comparable.

Protecting yourself against the (ridiculously) surveilled internet is wildly different to going to the effort of hiding one's responsibility for, or ownership of, a company.

I'd argue there should be a line between openly public knowledge and knowledge available to agencies responsible for prosecuting corporate malfeasance, but the ability to completely hide from responsibility for corporate malfeasance should not be possible.

Intentional cherry-picking:

- I think the Sackler's are still doing "just fine"

- Sam Bankman-Fried should have spent more time speaking to lawyers in the Cayman Islands to upgrade his level of ownership 'protection' (although maybe the real owners did and SBF was a patsy).

[lazide]

In most locales, kinky sex parties between consenting adults are also perfectly legal - depending on details, of course.

In very, very few locations is it a good idea to let all but a small subset of people know you’re having them. Jealousy is an ugly thing.

Same with money.

[jacksnipe]

Corporations have all sorts of special legal protections, on top of being the very thing (centers of capital) that the entire structure of government is meant to protect.

Individuals do not (unless backed by a corporation).

[demondemidi]

Reminds me of certain political persuasions who believe “corporations are people”.

[slim]

companies don't have any right to privacy

[hnisoss]

why would someone need to know financial details of my consulting LLC? would you share your payment slip and related finances with us?