3 ms·
Running a company is pretty much a public activity. Why protect the privacy of the rich and powerful (relatively to those who don't run any companies) few whil
by oytis 4y ago
Running a company is pretty much a public activity. Why protect the privacy of the rich and powerful (relatively to those who don't run any companies) few while compromising anti-corruption measures.
- prvit 4y agoWhy is it any more of a public activity than working for a company?
- sam_lowry_ 4y agoIt is kind of obvious, no?
- prvit 4y agoNot at all. A company could be a one man shop which only does business with one other company, it’s not obvious why that would be more of a public activity than just being directly employed by a company.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- troad 4y agoMost companies are one man shops, or small businesses. In certain countries (looking at you, Greece) it’s the only economic way to be a contractor or self-employed. Hardly the “rich and powerful”. Disclosing their personal information seems like an incredibly poorly targeted policy, motivated by little more than the misconception that you’re hurting the “rich and powerful”, when you’re just hurting the middle class and adding yet another barrier to people trying to start businesses (already stupidly difficult in most of Europe).
- seydor 4y agothey are not solely for rich and powerful. it s cheap to make a company and for many remote workers its the most sane way to be paid, because tax laws are insanely backwards. The secrecy of UBO is a weird concept though, i agree
- oytis 4y agoYes, I understand that, but they are also probably not the kind of people who would like their identity hidden. Acting in public while staying anonymous is creating a power disbalance. It can be justified in some cases, like for activists or journalists facing a greater power disbalance, but I can't imagine a good reason for economic activity (other than purely personal consumption) to stay private.