[prvit]

I’ll offer a different take here.

More than 99% of the people whose information is listed in these registries are not corrupt public officials, Russian oligarchs, or [insert person you dislike here].

Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever.

[trompetenaccoun]

Why should business owners be anonymous? Honest or not is irrelevant, the public should be able to find out who owns those companies, be it a local restaurant or a giant multinational corporation that owns stores and property through 18 different holding companies.

[seydor]

depends on the business and the size i would say. Maybe for business with < 1M in assets should not be required to be public

[prvit]

> Why should business owners be anonymous?

Why not? Generally EU countries do not like public lists of PII, why should business owners be treated differently?

What legitimate use do you have for this information?

[oytis]

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.

[troad]

Most 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]

they 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

[prvit]

Why is it any more of a public activity than working for a company?

[ghusto]

I'll go further and say they do bugger all to stop corruption. The rich will continue to find their loopholes and dodgy accountants. I know because I've worked for them. Pass all the laws you want, it's not going to effect them.

What they _do_ achieve however is getting your name irreversibly splattered around just for helping a charity as a "board member".

[TacticalCoder]

I'm 100% with you here.

People who need access to the UBO (for example because they are required, by law, to do KYC/AML on their customers) can still access it.

It's about restricting public access.

> Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever.

This.

[from]

Very little verification of UBO registers ever actually occurs. Which is why "oligarchs" have nominees and having to lie on another government form doesn't make a difference.

[miohtama]

There is clear evidence public registries are one of the most powerful tools to fight corruption:

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-o...

[EdwardDiego]

LLCs impose social costs when they go into liquidation, I feel like there's some concessions to be made.

[MildlySerious]

I think there are valid concerns, generally speaking, but I for my own selfish reasons prefer to have the option of keeping my information private.

I have no interest in being a public person, to any degree whatsoever. Not because I want to do shady things, but because there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away.

Creating a successful business is fundamentally connected to publicity, and if I succeed in creating publicity for my product/business/company I inevitably create publicity for myself. As things are those two things are inseparably connected. I personally hate it.

This is a far fetched, but the thought that someone innovates or creates something of value, and the payback may be that people want to kill them or kidnap their family because it happens to be a vaccine, or paparazzi hound them for the rest of their life because the media wants to cash in on them just sucks.

While I of course don't expect any of that to ever happen to me, I have thought about what if it happens. If someone is not willing to take that risk their only alternative is to be someone else's workhorse until retirement. It seems like a really bad and arbitrary filter (not the only one by any means) for who is and isn't able to take a shot at building something for themselves.

It doesn't really make sense to me that your willingness to give up your privacy is this connected to one of the biggest decisions you can make in life to grow and build meaningful stuff.

[7952]

I think a lot of the need for public disclosure is tied up with the benefits you get from starting a business. Perhaps the default should be for people to do more as private citizens rather than working through a company. Place more limits on what is a legitimate use for a business. But also make it easier for individuals to trade.

[jtsuken]

How nice you brought up the vaccine example.

So would you like to a live in a country where the government can mandate a vaccine and you have no way to find out who owns the VAXXPROD company, whose vaccines are mandated? What if the owner by pure coincidence is the nice of the Vax Minister?

On the other hand, how will John Doe's privacy be affected if it was public information that he owns Flush Pty Ltd, as long as Flush Pty Ltd is not doing anything of public interest?

Obviously, would get into the realm of public interest if John Doe also owned Flush-A, Flush-B, ... Flush-Z Pty Ltds, and these were purportedly competing for the tenders to install toilets in the City Council Building. Or would you rather keep this information private?

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

Financial regulators and police access to such registers should be enough.

[seydor]

It's like CSAM scanning