> Seems that that mainly is in the creditors' interest, not the public's. It's in the public's interest to have a functioning credit system. We can use some in

> Seems that that mainly is in the creditors' interest, not the public's. It's in the public's interest to have a functioning credit system. We can use some information to determine creditworthiness, or we can give everyone the same terms. Under blind terms, not only can none of us afford loans and interest rates feel predatory, you risk a moral hazard where fraud cannibalizes the entire system. I shouldn't have to argue this though, it's evident from the underlying facts of the case. The Spanish government itself decided there was a public interest in this information, that's why they demanded it was published in the first place. > You're being willfully obtuse here. If you know exactly what the European Court ordered, you also know its rationale... The insult seems unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't expect you'll believe me, but for the record, I'm actually making a good faith argument here because I find their rationale incredibly tortured. They conclude that something can be lawfully published, but not lawfully repeated. "Publish" implies the possibility of publicity though, they have the same root! It genuinely seems to me they were trying to have their cake and eat it too.