prvit

I'll just clear my cookies, change my VPN exit and continue posting. What's the point?

But that information isn’t public, it’s only visible to law enforcement.

This is how company ownership information should be treated too.

Because the Guardian says so.

This is a solved problem, you can simply refuse to work with charities that don’t share such information.

So? The name of that person doesn’t need to be public for the courts to be able to hold them accountable.

I really can’t see how your interest in not doing business with companies owned by people you like could possibly outweigh every business owners privacy interests.

When an individual has registered a car and is enjoying the right to operate a 6000 lbs death machine on public roads, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society?

The real question you have to answer is “Why is it necessary for company ownership to be public information?”

> A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells

What’s wrong here? Even with a perfect UBO registry that private owner could just get together with a couple of their buddies and divvy up that 70%.

What legal action are you going to take? Owning 70% of a town’s resources is generally not against the law.

Not at all. A company could be a one man shop which only does business with one other company, it’s not obvious why that would be more of a public activity than just being directly employed by a company.

Most companies probably do not own resources like land.

What actual use do you have for this information? Beyond “it’s nice to know”?

Is it not sufficient that you have a service address for the legal entity in case you need to sue it?

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

People do not start companies in Dubai instead of the EU because of paperwork, Dubai is particularly paperwork heavy (especially if you need a local bank account).

> 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?

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.

Because there is no “client list”.

Go on https://www.rtings.com/ and buy any decent OLED TV. Solves this problem entirely.

HDR can help if you’re watching HDR content, which most new content is starting to be.

I didn’t forget what I wrote, I just exist in the real world where missiles are a bigger threat than hackers.

These are criminals, they can install microsoft office and create fake proof of purchase.

Completely pointless idea.

> They aren't suffering more than poor.

But they are suffering more than they would if given the ability to post bail.

> So what you are basically saying is that poor people should suffer more for committing the same crime as someone rich.

Do you believe that rich people should suffer more because poor people can’t afford bail?

If you break a leg, should everyone else have their legs broken too? That’d be fair, right?

> the expectation is that they apply reasonable effort to doing so, including demonstrating a response to publicly known incidents of crime rings operating on their site.

Again, rule of law. Reasonable effort is to do nothing unless they have information that would make a reasonable person believe that the specific goods were stolen.

There’s no expectation that Amazon would investigate the providence of the goods they receive.

> Edit: This is at least the second time you've minimized an important piece of context: the problem is that they're accepting stolen goods, with multiple municipalities repeatedly warning them about it.

No, I’m not. Amazon receives unimaginable amounts of goods, of which only a vanishingly small fraction is stolen goods.

> Treating that as a "scale" issue doesn't wave the crime away, any more than throughput at a meatpacking factory would be a defense for the occasional employee being caught in the slaughter line.

Are you serious? Surely the odds of an employee ever getting caught in the slaughter line must be greater than zero?

Surely you understand that if we were to infinitely scale the meatpacking factory, we’d be essentially guaranteed to see employees get chopped up.

It’s literally impossible to sell goods from third parties at scale without inevitably accepting stolen goods.

There’s no amount of vetting that could solve this.

> "We run such a large and haphazard business that we inevitably do a little crime" is textbook culpability via negligence

Accepting goods for sale from third parties is not negligent.

> Every US state that I'm aware of makes it a crime to knowingly receive stolen property

For mens rea you’d need to know that the specific property you are receiving is stolen. Not that some of the amazon-scale quantities of property you’re receiving is inherently going to be stolen.

> This implies passivity, when the relationship is an active one

Doesn’t matter, Amazon still isn’t aware.

That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth.

> Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance

That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.

There is literally nothing Amazon can do.

Amazon is not knowingly selling stolen items, at least not in the sense meant by the law.

We’re discussing a new phenomenon that has only recently showed up in the US.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s well documented that Swartz was presented with two plea deals, one for 4 months and another for 6 months with an opportunity to ask the court for a lower sentence.

I suggest you read Orin Kerr’s blogs on this:

https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...

>Your certainty is grossly misplaced. And tremendously callous victim-blaming.

Don’t be a dick, especially when you’re wrong.

>You’re claiming Amazon has zero liability?

Yes, indeed. Would you like to present a theory as to why they would?

>Then why does Amazon employ people to deal with this problem?

These people are called “lawyers”, they deal with many other problems too.

>2019

Mostly, except pretrial detention for minor crimes is unfortunately still not that uncommon in Europe.

The lack of bail often makes this worse, a weird obsession with “fairness” forces us to continue locking up people with sufficient assets to insure against absconding. Poor people can’t afford bail? Better make everyone else suffer too.