Autograph hunting in Companies House | Hacker News Reader

Autograph hunting in Companies House

shkspr.mobi

48 pointsedent19 comments

Some would say signatures are used to verify I have agreed to something.

Others use signatures as a ceremony where the signing in the presence of witnesses (as per the article) is merely like the gavel coming down in court.

It signifies (ahem) the process is complete and it’s the witnesses that make it irrefutable, not the shape of my squiggle being inherently unique to me.

But the bank still wants my signature on file for security reasons. Can it be both — a biometric and a ceremonial action — or is the bank just engaging in security theatre?

If it’s a biometric, why are some people allowed to use X as their sign?

The original Apple Computer (UK) company formation documents are here too with Steve Jobs' signature from 1981.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01591116/filing-h...

Good find!

I guess that George Harrison signature is him indeed (because it's an official document), but what's interesting is The Beatles used a system for autographs for fans where one band member would do the autographs of the entire band on any given day. So as a collector you would need 16 signatures if you wanted to complete your collection.

I know several people that regularly give out autographs. I've heard from several of them that their autograph is totally different from their actual signature. Only a couple of them said it was for security reasons, where most have said it's just simply to make it as fast as possible.

It's all fun and games until the not inconsiderable amounts of personal and otherwise potentially sensitive data you're required to let them publish as a company official fall into the hands of an identity thief or other fraudster.

Rather like domain ownership records, it is just plain negligent to make these kinds of things totally open to the public now, rather than simply requiring them to be on file with the relevant authority so they can be checked if (and only if) there is a legitimate reason to do so.

The famously negligent practice of public records...

There is no need whatsoever to publish someone's name(s), address(es), possibly other personal details such as the signatures shown here, and a lot of information that would inform you about their personal finances, just because they happen to be a company official. It's a gift to identity thieves and fraudsters, and the potential for abuse is far too great. In theory, you're supposed to be able to check whether a business you're dealing with is above board, but in reality what gets published may be of little value for judging that even if someone does check, which won't happen often anyway.

I do not know what the case is on all forms, but from more modern registrations, such as for the production company behind The Grand Tour, W Chump and Sons [1], at least for adding directors, residential addresses are hidden away. Additionally, I would love to see any credible examples of abuse from this system, seeing as it has been around for a while.

[1]: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09668527/filing-h...

Yes, quite recently they've started to allow more care about disclosing the details. There is still more than there really needs to be, but not as much as there used to be. But of course the historical filings are all still there.

There is typically no way to provide credible examples of specific abuses of this information. Then again, after 1,000,000 people's details leak from a financial organisation being hacked, there is typically no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the wave of identity thefts that follows was a direct result of the leak. That's not much comfort if you're on the receiving end of it, though.

There is a box on the form for "I have been given an exemption from publication by the Home Secretary".

It was put in after protestors against Huntington Life Sciences started attacking directors in their homes.

Firs things first: the rules on UK directors personal addresses changed a few years ago so that you can use a service address, but it must be a correspondence address to which you will receive any and all material sent so that people can write to you. You do not have to give your home address out on the Companies House website.

However, I'd argue you probably should.

A company is a legal entity with special powers, privileges and and responsibilities. There is little doubt its concept has been abused and misused by those who seek to do harm within society.

The vast majority of successful investigative journalism pieces into fraud, tax-avoidance, links to other criminal activity, etc. have come about from being able to follow the paper trail including names, addresses and so on.

The intent is not just to make sure a company is "above board", but to open the ability to hold a company and its officers to account to anybody who wishes to.

In a capitalist democracy, transparency of this form is essential.

For example, (moving away from the UK example), it's the reason why so many people are so keen to see Donald Trump's tax returns and - presumably - why he doesn't want to make them public. What we know publicly already tells us a great deal about the most powerful person in America, so what would the private information tell us?

In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy.

I respectfully submit that becoming an officer of a limited company is far from the powerful, glamorous position you suggest here. Limited companies aren't some sort of magical entity. They're a simple economic and legal construct, with what was supposed to be a very specific purpose.

Should those responsible for running companies be known to the legal authorities, so that they can be held accountable for the actions of those companies if they break the law? Sure. But that's still the case anyway.

Should those responsible automatically lose all right to the privacy of personal details that would normally be protected by law? I don't see any moral or practical argument for that. We have those privacy laws for a reason, and there is little doubt that personal information that people have been forced to publish has been abused and misused either.

I don't think the Trump analogy is particularly compelling. Someone starting a little business here in the UK is hardly the same as someone running to be literally the most powerful person in the world, in a public vote, where their campaign and credibility is fundamentally built upon achievements for which they are unwilling to show supporting evidence.

Companies are powerful, not their officers. Officers control that power by consensus, and must be held accountable.

And you still haven't realised that officers are not required to lose all right to the privacy of personal details. They haven't needed to give their home address out publicly since 2018 in the UK.

Finally, someone starting a little business here in the UK has an unknown future - as do we all - and in 10 years time they could be running for political office, they might have established a monopoly, they might have started laundering money. Your straw man argument is that starting a business is always honourable and what you do now is irrelevant to journalists in 10, 20, 50 years...

Generally officers of a company in modern times, just put personal information as being their accountants or lawyers address.

Most companies will use an accountant, and they're all set-up to take mail for companies they work for.

Yes, we do the same, and to give credit where it's due, they have got better in recent years at not giving away quite as much personal information and allowing correspondence via a professional agent.

However, it wasn't always such a forgiving system -- after all, there was a reason you could apply to have your details hidden if you were being threatened or working in a controversial business -- and historical filings are still available, which as we see in this very discussion can include a lot more.

Thanks for the Monty Python one.

This raises an important question...

Just because something is public does not give you to use the personal data for a new use without the data subjects consent. Posting up a celebrities signature could be against the GDPR...

This is a good point, data being available and free does not itself give you rights of reuse.

I couldn't find an obvious license (note - without a license data should be considered to be the most restricted) but a lot of the data from companies house is under the OGL : http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licen...

Almost all reuse is fine, including commercial, however this does not extend to personal data.

This is more of a broad issue with the data rather than a complaint about the autograph hunting which I think is a nice fun application.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com