3 ms·

> It's very sad to see commenters here fail applying the same principle to both. I don't think the two are comparable, and just applying "are technologies to a

> It's very sad to see commenters here fail applying the same principle to both. I don't think the two are comparable, and just applying "are technologies to achieve privacy, and both are sometimes abused by bad actors" to both as if that's the start and end of the discussion is surprisingly dismissive. The 'scope' of encryption is fairly limited in comparison to the scope of a company that can operate under the directorship of a person or persons who are entirely protected from any legal responsibility for the actions of said company. I may be blinded by personal bias, but I just don't see but the most marginal comparison of these two concepts.

balderdash 3y ago
> entirely protected from any legal responsibility for the actions of said company Huh, because the public can’t look up who the beneficial owners of a company are despite mean the company has any ability to avoid its legal obligations
solidsnack9000 3y ago
Every shareholder in a corporation is a beneficial owner of it. Every holder of shares in a mutual fund -- which is a trust that holds shares in corporations -- is also a beneficial owner of corporations. Officers of a corporation are different from owners. Typically the role of shell corporations is to hide owners.