3 ms·

I think I would agree if it was truly open and accessible to the public ( say published on government website somewhere ) and not hidden behind data brokers' pa

I think I would agree if it was truly open and accessible to the public ( say published on government website somewhere ) and not hidden behind data brokers' paywalls with the understanding that everyone is included ( and I do mean everyone ). The problem is, as it always has been, that there are people and entities, who are above such laws ( usually that short list includes politicians that write them ). I guess what I really was is clear rules of engagement. We don't have that now at all. << (but not my private home address) I am admittedly ignorant of Germany's laws in that area, but in US use of dba with owner's real address is not that uncommon ( although that is a slightly different type of entity to begin with ). That said, US is its own animal anyway. << exposing my home address could put me in personal danger so I have a stronger interest to keep that private as long as my ownership of different companies can be correlated. I could support that argument, but while one database may not have your address listed, correlation ( and likely finding that address ) is likely trivial. Privacy is only privacy, when it actually works. Window dressing to make a legally sound argument defeats its purpose to me.

ghusto 4y ago
Isn't this what we're talking about? https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Um.. I do not want to seem snarky ( and it is not intended as such, but I want to make sure accurate current state is presented ) so please this consider this quote at face value indicating how EU and UK differ: From the article: "The court’s ruling puts it at odds with the UK, which was one of the first countries in the world to introduce a public beneficial ownership register in 2016." The link provided belongs to UK government, which is no longer part of EU, which effectively only proves that some countries took steps like that. edit: missing verb
  - ghusto 4y ago
    Yup, I got that :) What I was asking is if Companies House was the kind of thing we talking about. So yes, the UK has left the EU, but was Companies House brought up at the time to be in compliance with EU regulations — or even, is it the same thing we're talking about, regardless of the UK's EU status. Because if it is, then I'm glad the EU at least is getting rid of things like that.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      Ah, yes. In that case the response is yes.
sam_lowry_ 4y ago
This info is public or easily accessible in all EU countries. There are no Elsevier-style data brokers in this business yet. Personal anecdote: I had my company registered to my home address for 13 years while doing online business where I regularly received threats. None showed up at my doorsteps in all these years to insult me in person while literally hundreds if not thosands did insult me online. IMO these luxemburgish barons from the FT story are not physically afraid either, they just want to hide their dirty money in the dark.
- hnbad 4y ago
  There are data brokers but they hardly compare, e.g. North Data. And the amount of information that these make publicly available is astonishing. For an example, here's Bosch in Germany. Scroll down to "Netzwerk" and you see a relationship graph down to the individual level showing subsidiaries, managing directors and such: https://www.northdata.de/Robert+Bosch+GmbH,+Gerlingen/Amtsgericht+Stuttgart+HRB+14000 https://www.northdata.de/Robert+Bosch+GmbH,+Gerlingen/Amtsge... If that list seems incomplete, the page also links to all known direct subsidiaries and indirect subsidiaries. This is in addition to available financial and historical data.
hnbad 4y ago
I think you misunderstood that last quote: - exposing my home address could put me in personal danger so I have a stronger interest to keep that private BUT - as long as my ownership of different companies can be correlated These are conflicting interests (my interest in privacy, the public's interest in transparency) that need to be weighed and Germany traditionally favors privacy in most cases. The Transparenzregister requires registration and only permits limited access to members of the general public. But it exists and the information is out there. That is important. It's really hard to convey the notion of European (and especially German) ideas of privacy to Americans given that even California's privacy laws are fundamentally different. I suppose it's similar to trying to explain US gun laws or freedom of speech to Europeans. There may be superficial similarities in what these legally mean in practice but the underlying cultural ideas and origins are very different (e.g. the material fact that there are more guns in the US than gun owners has very important ramifications: even with public support, implementing Australia-style gun collection would take decades if not longer).

ghusto 4y ago

Isn't this what we're talking about? https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Um.. I do not want to seem snarky ( and it is not intended as such, but I want to make sure accurate current state is presented ) so please this consider this quote at face value indicating how EU and UK differ: From the article: "The court’s ruling puts it at odds with the UK, which was one of the first countries in the world to introduce a public beneficial ownership register in 2016." The link provided belongs to UK government, which is no longer part of EU, which effectively only proves that some countries took steps like that. edit: missing verb
- ghusto 4y ago
  Yup, I got that :) What I was asking is if Companies House was the kind of thing we talking about. So yes, the UK has left the EU, but was Companies House brought up at the time to be in compliance with EU regulations — or even, is it the same thing we're talking about, regardless of the UK's EU status. Because if it is, then I'm glad the EU at least is getting rid of things like that.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    Ah, yes. In that case the response is yes.

sam_lowry_ 4y ago

This info is public or easily accessible in all EU countries. There are no Elsevier-style data brokers in this business yet. Personal anecdote: I had my company registered to my home address for 13 years while doing online business where I regularly received threats. None showed up at my doorsteps in all these years to insult me in person while literally hundreds if not thosands did insult me online. IMO these luxemburgish barons from the FT story are not physically afraid either, they just want to hide their dirty money in the dark.

hnbad 4y ago
There are data brokers but they hardly compare, e.g. North Data. And the amount of information that these make publicly available is astonishing. For an example, here's Bosch in Germany. Scroll down to "Netzwerk" and you see a relationship graph down to the individual level showing subsidiaries, managing directors and such: https://www.northdata.de/Robert+Bosch+GmbH,+Gerlingen/Amtsgericht+Stuttgart+HRB+14000 https://www.northdata.de/Robert+Bosch+GmbH,+Gerlingen/Amtsge... If that list seems incomplete, the page also links to all known direct subsidiaries and indirect subsidiaries. This is in addition to available financial and historical data.

hnbad 4y ago

I think you misunderstood that last quote: - exposing my home address could put me in personal danger so I have a stronger interest to keep that private BUT - as long as my ownership of different companies can be correlated These are conflicting interests (my interest in privacy, the public's interest in transparency) that need to be weighed and Germany traditionally favors privacy in most cases. The Transparenzregister requires registration and only permits limited access to members of the general public. But it exists and the information is out there. That is important. It's really hard to convey the notion of European (and especially German) ideas of privacy to Americans given that even California's privacy laws are fundamentally different. I suppose it's similar to trying to explain US gun laws or freedom of speech to Europeans. There may be superficial similarities in what these legally mean in practice but the underlying cultural ideas and origins are very different (e.g. the material fact that there are more guns in the US than gun owners has very important ramifications: even with public support, implementing Australia-style gun collection would take decades if not longer).