4 ms·

Here in Norway the register of who operates a company is public information in Brønnøysundregistrene [1] It's convenient but it also generates a huge amount of

Here in Norway the register of who operates a company is public information in Brønnøysundregistrene [1] It's convenient but it also generates a huge amount of telephone spam and fake invoices fraud attempts. So I could see the argument of keeping that information private. I still think that it's better to have it public, but it generates some additional problems that needs to be handled. 1: https://www.brreg.no/ https://www.brreg.no/

hkt 6y ago
We have the same thing in the UK, Companies House. Anyone who is a director has their address in public. It doesn't generate much spam though as we don't do phone numbers or email addresses, and companies who spam people who aren't opted in to spam can be fined.
- namdnay 6y ago
  The problem is that lists the director, not the owner. So you just have a secretary in a law firm listed as the director of 200 shell companies
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    By law Companies House requires that "Persons with Significant Control" be listed. PSCs are small numbers of specifically humans (not corporations) who, somehow, in effect control the company. The PSC entries are supposed to list all such humans (assuming any individual humans have "significant" control which they wouldn't at e.g. a publicly traded company) and only those humans. The law is in practice fairly toothless, Companies House has typically insisted that it simply doesn't have the funding to pursue errors even though it's illegal to make false filings - despite a large volume of obviously bogus information in their system every year. It did find the money exactly once in recent years, to prosecute one person. That one person was making a point of how toothless it is, by creating bogus data that was embarrassing to named politicians. What an excellent way to make their point for them.
  - cnorthwood 6y ago
    No, Companies House also requires you to declare "persons with significant control" in the ltd company, which includes the owners. (for example, this is my company https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11846968/persons-with-significant-control https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...)
- tialaramex 6y ago
  For quite some years now the rule for Companies House is that a director may provide an office address and that's what is shown in the public records. Companies House will still ask for their home address, but it isn't public. There are actually three levels: A public address available to anybody who knows how to enquire, an address available to a large number of authorised users, including Credit Reference Agencies, numerous government agencies and so on, and finally a home address intended primarily for law enforcement (e.g. if the director is to be arrested it wouldn't do for police to have no idea where they live). You can set them all to be the same, but you don't have to. The reason for the last extra grade is that in the UK there are businesses which are legal but broadly unpopular. For example, somebody is breeding animals that will be used for medical research. Historically protesters have harassed the directors of firms like that, vandalized their homes and cars, physically attacked them, or threatened their lives. Such directors are entitled to request that their home addresses be suppressed from most uses for this reason.

hkt 6y ago

We have the same thing in the UK, Companies House. Anyone who is a director has their address in public. It doesn't generate much spam though as we don't do phone numbers or email addresses, and companies who spam people who aren't opted in to spam can be fined.

namdnay 6y ago
The problem is that lists the director, not the owner. So you just have a secretary in a law firm listed as the director of 200 shell companies
- tialaramex 6y ago
  By law Companies House requires that "Persons with Significant Control" be listed. PSCs are small numbers of specifically humans (not corporations) who, somehow, in effect control the company. The PSC entries are supposed to list all such humans (assuming any individual humans have "significant" control which they wouldn't at e.g. a publicly traded company) and only those humans. The law is in practice fairly toothless, Companies House has typically insisted that it simply doesn't have the funding to pursue errors even though it's illegal to make false filings - despite a large volume of obviously bogus information in their system every year. It did find the money exactly once in recent years, to prosecute one person. That one person was making a point of how toothless it is, by creating bogus data that was embarrassing to named politicians. What an excellent way to make their point for them.
- cnorthwood 6y ago
  No, Companies House also requires you to declare "persons with significant control" in the ltd company, which includes the owners. (for example, this is my company https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11846968/persons-with-significant-control https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...)
tialaramex 6y ago
For quite some years now the rule for Companies House is that a director may provide an office address and that's what is shown in the public records. Companies House will still ask for their home address, but it isn't public. There are actually three levels: A public address available to anybody who knows how to enquire, an address available to a large number of authorised users, including Credit Reference Agencies, numerous government agencies and so on, and finally a home address intended primarily for law enforcement (e.g. if the director is to be arrested it wouldn't do for police to have no idea where they live). You can set them all to be the same, but you don't have to. The reason for the last extra grade is that in the UK there are businesses which are legal but broadly unpopular. For example, somebody is breeding animals that will be used for medical research. Historically protesters have harassed the directors of firms like that, vandalized their homes and cars, physically attacked them, or threatened their lives. Such directors are entitled to request that their home addresses be suppressed from most uses for this reason.