5 ms·

It sounds like this information will be available to people at banks and law enforcement without a subpoena. Is this the case? If so, this represents an enormou

It sounds like this information will be available to people at banks and law enforcement without a subpoena. Is this the case? If so, this represents an enormous threat to privacy. It should not be possible for people at a bank or law enforcement to do a db query without judicial consent, find out everything someone owns, and illegally leak that data to their friend / reporter / relative / lawyer / PI who asked. I don't care if that makes their work harder or more expensive; unless someone has reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in illegal activity, there are good reasons for that data to be private.

madhadron 6y ago
Why wouldn't beneficial ownership of a company be entirely public data?
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  TL;DR I agree with the intent of this law but I disagree with the exact implementation. There are groups of people who have legitimate safety concerns (victims of domestic violence and stalking, members of law enforcement, victims of abuse from law enforcement, public figures potentially subject to political violence such as the people certifying voting in this recent election, high net worth individuals, corporate officers of companies some people have beef with, activists, LGBT in very religious areas, reporters, whistle blowers, etc) who are using these tools as part of a DIY witness protection program to safeguard themselves against violence and intimidation. This is undermined if people can trivially unmask the beneficiaries of companies used to obfuscate purchases of assets such as a house or car. I agree that this data should be available to law enforcement during an investigation (ie with a subpoena), but allowing bank employees or any member of law enforcement to trivially access it whenever they want opens up the door to abuses and leaks (selling access or granting access to friends, contacts, or others intent on doing the owners harm). It also assumes blanket trust in those with privileged access and there have been many instances in the past of this trust being abused. It should require more than knowing or being a cop or a bank employee with access to be able to DOX or come after someone who is not breaking the law but wants to remain private.
- jksmith 6y ago
  I may be off base here, but what if I'm a super-rich dude who starts a company that exists solely to send the SPCA, St.Judes and Shriner's Hospital a million a month because of those gut-wrenching commercials, but I want to remain completely anonymous about it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Isn't that dealt with by running a non-profit? "Churches, charities and other non-profits are also exempt." If you need a a commercial company to make money before handing it over, here in the UK it is common to set that up as a subsidiary of the non-profit. Charities do it all the time, a subsidiary company runs the charity shops, and gives the profit to the parent charity. This allows the shops to be run more like a commercial operation, with fewer constraints than a charity is required to follow, then when the money is handed up to the charity those constraints apply to how it is spent or distributed to other charities.

madhadron 6y ago

Why wouldn't beneficial ownership of a company be entirely public data?

OminousWeapons 6y ago
TL;DR I agree with the intent of this law but I disagree with the exact implementation. There are groups of people who have legitimate safety concerns (victims of domestic violence and stalking, members of law enforcement, victims of abuse from law enforcement, public figures potentially subject to political violence such as the people certifying voting in this recent election, high net worth individuals, corporate officers of companies some people have beef with, activists, LGBT in very religious areas, reporters, whistle blowers, etc) who are using these tools as part of a DIY witness protection program to safeguard themselves against violence and intimidation. This is undermined if people can trivially unmask the beneficiaries of companies used to obfuscate purchases of assets such as a house or car. I agree that this data should be available to law enforcement during an investigation (ie with a subpoena), but allowing bank employees or any member of law enforcement to trivially access it whenever they want opens up the door to abuses and leaks (selling access or granting access to friends, contacts, or others intent on doing the owners harm). It also assumes blanket trust in those with privileged access and there have been many instances in the past of this trust being abused. It should require more than knowing or being a cop or a bank employee with access to be able to DOX or come after someone who is not breaking the law but wants to remain private.
jksmith 6y ago
I may be off base here, but what if I'm a super-rich dude who starts a company that exists solely to send the SPCA, St.Judes and Shriner's Hospital a million a month because of those gut-wrenching commercials, but I want to remain completely anonymous about it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jlokier 6y ago
  Isn't that dealt with by running a non-profit? "Churches, charities and other non-profits are also exempt." If you need a a commercial company to make money before handing it over, here in the UK it is common to set that up as a subsidiary of the non-profit. Charities do it all the time, a subsidiary company runs the charity shops, and gives the profit to the parent charity. This allows the shops to be run more like a commercial operation, with fewer constraints than a charity is required to follow, then when the money is handed up to the charity those constraints apply to how it is spent or distributed to other charities.