4 ms·

I don't quite get it. It seems that what this does is put the burden on reporting of this information back onto banks, not that this information will not be col

I don't quite get it. It seems that what this does is put the burden on reporting of this information back onto banks, not that this information will not be collected. Further it is my understanding that the reporting was to identify the up to four people who had controlling interests in companies with more than 20 employees and 5 million in sales. the intention being to reduce money laundering and terrorism. Name the four largest shareholders? This honestly does not seem like any kind of burden to me. If it is, I have way more burden reporting short vs long term capital gains or hell even renewing my passport.

Henchman21 2y ago
Perhaps you should consider that humans have been putting monumental amounts of effort to hide who owns these businesses? Its reasonable to me to assume that those who wish to conduct their business in the shadows have something to hide. Removing the light and returning to shadows? Does that seem like a good idea to you?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > reasonable to me to assume that those who wish to conduct their business in the shadows have something to hide Remarkably close to the pitch against any privacy protection.
  - Henchman21 2y ago
    Yes yes, let’s take a law meant to shine a light on corruption and rebrand that law as the corruption itself.
    - vuln 2y ago
      What something is “meant” to do and what it actually “does” can be two wildly different things.
      - redeux 2y ago
        We’ll never know in this case
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > let’s take a law meant to shine a light on corruption and rebrand that law as the corruption itself Who said the CTA is corrupt?
- uberman 2y ago
  Are you implying that I am supportive of this announcement?
  - Henchman21 2y ago
    No you seem as baffled as I am. But when people try to hide information, revealing the truth often takes a MONUMENTAL effort. Genuinely, I’m not sure why you think this wouldn’t be a burden or why you’d be so dismissive?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> seems that what this does is put the burden on reporting of this information back onto banks Currently, yes. The modus operandi seems to be the President does X and then the Congress legalises it. (See: USAID.) Not how it’s supposed to work! But precedented in e.g. the late Roman Republic. (Why, I believe, the British implemented a vote of no confidence for replacing the executive, versus our system’s much-more extreme system of impeachment.)

Henchman21 2y ago

Perhaps you should consider that humans have been putting monumental amounts of effort to hide who owns these businesses? Its reasonable to me to assume that those who wish to conduct their business in the shadows have something to hide. Removing the light and returning to shadows? Does that seem like a good idea to you?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> reasonable to me to assume that those who wish to conduct their business in the shadows have something to hide Remarkably close to the pitch against any privacy protection.
- Henchman21 2y ago
  Yes yes, let’s take a law meant to shine a light on corruption and rebrand that law as the corruption itself.
  - vuln 2y ago
    What something is “meant” to do and what it actually “does” can be two wildly different things.
    - redeux 2y ago
      We’ll never know in this case
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > let’s take a law meant to shine a light on corruption and rebrand that law as the corruption itself Who said the CTA is corrupt?
uberman 2y ago
Are you implying that I am supportive of this announcement?
- Henchman21 2y ago
  No you seem as baffled as I am. But when people try to hide information, revealing the truth often takes a MONUMENTAL effort. Genuinely, I’m not sure why you think this wouldn’t be a burden or why you’d be so dismissive?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> seems that what this does is put the burden on reporting of this information back onto banks Currently, yes. The modus operandi seems to be the President does X and then the Congress legalises it. (See: USAID.) Not how it’s supposed to work! But precedented in e.g. the late Roman Republic. (Why, I believe, the British implemented a vote of no confidence for replacing the executive, versus our system’s much-more extreme system of impeachment.)