5 ms·

The famously negligent practice of public records...

Silhouette 6y ago
There is no need whatsoever to publish someone's name(s), address(es), possibly other personal details such as the signatures shown here, and a lot of information that would inform you about their personal finances, just because they happen to be a company official. It's a gift to identity thieves and fraudsters, and the potential for abuse is far too great. In theory, you're supposed to be able to check whether a business you're dealing with is above board, but in reality what gets published may be of little value for judging that even if someone does check, which won't happen often anyway.
- arrivance 6y ago
  I do not know what the case is on all forms, but from more modern registrations, such as for the production company behind The Grand Tour, W Chump and Sons [1], at least for adding directors, residential addresses are hidden away. Additionally, I would love to see any credible examples of abuse from this system, seeing as it has been around for a while. [1]: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09668527/filing-history https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09668527/filing-h...
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    Yes, quite recently they've started to allow more care about disclosing the details. There is still more than there really needs to be, but not as much as there used to be. But of course the historical filings are all still there. There is typically no way to provide credible examples of specific abuses of this information. Then again, after 1,000,000 people's details leak from a financial organisation being hacked, there is typically no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the wave of identity thefts that follows was a direct result of the leak. That's not much comfort if you're on the receiving end of it, though.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    There is a box on the form for "I have been given an exemption from publication by the Home Secretary". It was put in after protestors against Huntington Life Sciences started attacking directors in their homes.
- PaulRobinson 6y ago
  Firs things first: the rules on UK directors personal addresses changed a few years ago so that you can use a service address, but it must be a correspondence address to which you will receive any and all material sent so that people can write to you. You do not have to give your home address out on the Companies House website. However, I'd argue you probably should. A company is a legal entity with special powers, privileges and and responsibilities. There is little doubt its concept has been abused and misused by those who seek to do harm within society. The vast majority of successful investigative journalism pieces into fraud, tax-avoidance, links to other criminal activity, etc. have come about from being able to follow the paper trail including names, addresses and so on. The intent is not just to make sure a company is "above board", but to open the ability to hold a company and its officers to account to anybody who wishes to. In a capitalist democracy, transparency of this form is essential. For example, (moving away from the UK example), it's the reason why so many people are so keen to see Donald Trump's tax returns and - presumably - why he doesn't want to make them public. What we know publicly already tells us a great deal about the most powerful person in America, so what would the private information tell us? In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy. I respectfully submit that becoming an officer of a limited company is far from the powerful, glamorous position you suggest here. Limited companies aren't some sort of magical entity. They're a simple economic and legal construct, with what was supposed to be a very specific purpose. Should those responsible for running companies be known to the legal authorities, so that they can be held accountable for the actions of those companies if they break the law? Sure. But that's still the case anyway. Should those responsible automatically lose all right to the privacy of personal details that would normally be protected by law? I don't see any moral or practical argument for that. We have those privacy laws for a reason, and there is little doubt that personal information that people have been forced to publish has been abused and misused either. I don't think the Trump analogy is particularly compelling. Someone starting a little business here in the UK is hardly the same as someone running to be literally the most powerful person in the world, in a public vote, where their campaign and credibility is fundamentally built upon achievements for which they are unwilling to show supporting evidence.

There is no need whatsoever to publish someone's name(s), address(es), possibly other personal details such as the signatures shown here, and a lot of information that would inform you about their personal finances, just because they happen to be a company official. It's a gift to identity thieves and fraudsters, and the potential for abuse is far too great. In theory, you're supposed to be able to check whether a business you're dealing with is above board, but in reality what gets published may be of little value for judging that even if someone does check, which won't happen often anyway.

arrivance 6y ago
I do not know what the case is on all forms, but from more modern registrations, such as for the production company behind The Grand Tour, W Chump and Sons [1], at least for adding directors, residential addresses are hidden away. Additionally, I would love to see any credible examples of abuse from this system, seeing as it has been around for a while. [1]: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09668527/filing-history https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09668527/filing-h...
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Yes, quite recently they've started to allow more care about disclosing the details. There is still more than there really needs to be, but not as much as there used to be. But of course the historical filings are all still there. There is typically no way to provide credible examples of specific abuses of this information. Then again, after 1,000,000 people's details leak from a financial organisation being hacked, there is typically no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the wave of identity thefts that follows was a direct result of the leak. That's not much comfort if you're on the receiving end of it, though.
- pjc50 6y ago
  There is a box on the form for "I have been given an exemption from publication by the Home Secretary". It was put in after protestors against Huntington Life Sciences started attacking directors in their homes.
PaulRobinson 6y ago
Firs things first: the rules on UK directors personal addresses changed a few years ago so that you can use a service address, but it must be a correspondence address to which you will receive any and all material sent so that people can write to you. You do not have to give your home address out on the Companies House website. However, I'd argue you probably should. A company is a legal entity with special powers, privileges and and responsibilities. There is little doubt its concept has been abused and misused by those who seek to do harm within society. The vast majority of successful investigative journalism pieces into fraud, tax-avoidance, links to other criminal activity, etc. have come about from being able to follow the paper trail including names, addresses and so on. The intent is not just to make sure a company is "above board", but to open the ability to hold a company and its officers to account to anybody who wishes to. In a capitalist democracy, transparency of this form is essential. For example, (moving away from the UK example), it's the reason why so many people are so keen to see Donald Trump's tax returns and - presumably - why he doesn't want to make them public. What we know publicly already tells us a great deal about the most powerful person in America, so what would the private information tell us? In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy. I respectfully submit that becoming an officer of a limited company is far from the powerful, glamorous position you suggest here. Limited companies aren't some sort of magical entity. They're a simple economic and legal construct, with what was supposed to be a very specific purpose. Should those responsible for running companies be known to the legal authorities, so that they can be held accountable for the actions of those companies if they break the law? Sure. But that's still the case anyway. Should those responsible automatically lose all right to the privacy of personal details that would normally be protected by law? I don't see any moral or practical argument for that. We have those privacy laws for a reason, and there is little doubt that personal information that people have been forced to publish has been abused and misused either. I don't think the Trump analogy is particularly compelling. Someone starting a little business here in the UK is hardly the same as someone running to be literally the most powerful person in the world, in a public vote, where their campaign and credibility is fundamentally built upon achievements for which they are unwilling to show supporting evidence.