4 ms·

I think privacy is really about power – we think the individual deserves privacy because it protects their personal autonomy from either corporate or state abus

I think privacy is really about power – we think the individual deserves privacy because it protects their personal autonomy from either corporate or state abuse. My view is that privacy is important because it's a prerequisite for self-expression – it's not just "oh you might have something to hide", it's that if you are watched/monitored then your behaviour will change. Why is this different when it comes to corporations? First, some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) argue that limited liability is a privilege because it provides extensive legal protection for those undertaking a venture. With that privilege come certain responsibilities and duties, one of which is non-anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it deters bad behaviour which is another reason to justify this. Second, I think it's _really_ hard to argue that being able to have an anonymous, offshore shell corporation is essential for your self expression. Especially not when you are using it to hide large amounts of money. In fact, this infringes upon other people's right to self expression by depriving the state of funding that it would use to provide services to them such as education, subsidising the arts, etc. There's a good piece in the New Yorker which explores exactly this question: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/why-the-privacy-wars-rage-on-amy-gajda-seek-and-hide-brian-hochman-the-listeners https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/why-the-privac...

skinkestek 3y ago
Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation to fundraise for causes they wanted to fundraise for. The way they do it has been tried all the way to the top here and everyone agree it is legal. They still lost all their contracts, again[1], after media found out and made a fuzz about the fact that nobody took out salaries but transferred the profit to causes they identified with. Media even pointed out that it was legal, but, big orgs don't care: they do whatever it takes to get media away. [1]: yes, this isn't the first time.
- sealeck 3y ago
  I really can't comment here because it seems like there are a million possible details that could make this either something very illegal or a miscarriage of justice.
  - skinkestek 3y ago
    It was in all the papers. Went through all instances, all the way to the relevant department. But of course there is nothing in Norwegian law that that denies people the right to donate their share, as long as every other law is followed. Which is why last time media even pointed it out in cleartext the article: everything is legal. They just wrote the article in the style of a criminal investigation anyway and askes big companies questions the same way they would have done with if they were caught dealing with russian mobsters. That way they can point to the fact that they have informed about it while still destroying the marked for someone they don't like. (Sorry, English is nit my first language.)
    - doktrin 3y ago
      If it’s a well known case feel free to share it, otherwise you’re just editorialising an unverifiable anecdote.
      - skinkestek 3y ago
        Sadly, as I have outlined in my reply to the other question (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926847) I am afraid of doxxing myself if I say more about this. But, without me being a legal expert in any way, shape or form, my feeling is it is relatively similar to the "Fjordteam" case from Sandefjord a few years ago: Different owners, different jobs, but operated by volunteers who looked for a nore efficient (and healthier :-) way to finance their activities instead of the traditional Norwegian "cake raffle" ("kakelotteri")
        doktrin 3y ago
        The case involving a large and well known religious organisation that “employed” an army of unpaid volunteers? Can’t see how that relates to the broad description you provided earlier.
        skinkestek 3y ago
- filoleg 3y ago
  > Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation Did you mean "moonlight"? Asking because when I hear "a moonshine operation to fundraise for causes", I imagine something akin to an alcohol-themed Breaking Bad storyline
  - skinkestek 3y ago
    You are of course right :-)
mistrial9 3y ago
> non-anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it deters bad behaviour which is another reason to justify this. that goes both ways .. tax collection, arbitrary and capricious enforcement of regulation, scrutiny-as-punishment .. these things are as old as cities
- sealeck 3y ago
  I think this is usually a problem which is more easily solved by better funding tax authorities and installing better oversight rather than by making it easier for people to not pay tax. I think most people's tax affairs are pretty clear-cut to assess (e.g. if you are an individual earning an income or run a small business). People who structure their tax affairs in convoluted ways where it becomes non-trivial to work out what the correct amount of tax they should be paying is (or even a question which can't really be answered until you are in caught) generally have a lot of money or are trying something stupid (e.g. trying to pay yourself your salary as a loan through an offshore company where the tax authority are obviously going to think this is illegal, see https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/barrowman_fraud https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/barrowman_fraud).

skinkestek 3y ago

Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation to fundraise for causes they wanted to fundraise for. The way they do it has been tried all the way to the top here and everyone agree it is legal. They still lost all their contracts, again[1], after media found out and made a fuzz about the fact that nobody took out salaries but transferred the profit to causes they identified with. Media even pointed out that it was legal, but, big orgs don't care: they do whatever it takes to get media away. [1]: yes, this isn't the first time.

sealeck 3y ago
I really can't comment here because it seems like there are a million possible details that could make this either something very illegal or a miscarriage of justice.
- skinkestek 3y ago
  It was in all the papers. Went through all instances, all the way to the relevant department. But of course there is nothing in Norwegian law that that denies people the right to donate their share, as long as every other law is followed. Which is why last time media even pointed it out in cleartext the article: everything is legal. They just wrote the article in the style of a criminal investigation anyway and askes big companies questions the same way they would have done with if they were caught dealing with russian mobsters. That way they can point to the fact that they have informed about it while still destroying the marked for someone they don't like. (Sorry, English is nit my first language.)
  - doktrin 3y ago
    If it’s a well known case feel free to share it, otherwise you’re just editorialising an unverifiable anecdote.
    - skinkestek 3y ago
      Sadly, as I have outlined in my reply to the other question (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926847) I am afraid of doxxing myself if I say more about this. But, without me being a legal expert in any way, shape or form, my feeling is it is relatively similar to the "Fjordteam" case from Sandefjord a few years ago: Different owners, different jobs, but operated by volunteers who looked for a nore efficient (and healthier :-) way to finance their activities instead of the traditional Norwegian "cake raffle" ("kakelotteri")
      - doktrin 3y ago
        The case involving a large and well known religious organisation that “employed” an army of unpaid volunteers? Can’t see how that relates to the broad description you provided earlier.
        skinkestek 3y ago
filoleg 3y ago
> Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation Did you mean "moonlight"? Asking because when I hear "a moonshine operation to fundraise for causes", I imagine something akin to an alcohol-themed Breaking Bad storyline
- skinkestek 3y ago
  You are of course right :-)

mistrial9 3y ago

> non-anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it deters bad behaviour which is another reason to justify this. that goes both ways .. tax collection, arbitrary and capricious enforcement of regulation, scrutiny-as-punishment .. these things are as old as cities

sealeck 3y ago
I think this is usually a problem which is more easily solved by better funding tax authorities and installing better oversight rather than by making it easier for people to not pay tax. I think most people's tax affairs are pretty clear-cut to assess (e.g. if you are an individual earning an income or run a small business). People who structure their tax affairs in convoluted ways where it becomes non-trivial to work out what the correct amount of tax they should be paying is (or even a question which can't really be answered until you are in caught) generally have a lot of money or are trying something stupid (e.g. trying to pay yourself your salary as a loan through an offshore company where the tax authority are obviously going to think this is illegal, see https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/barrowman_fraud https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/barrowman_fraud).