prvit

6 ms·

1.
by prvit 4y ago
I'll just clear my cookies, change my VPN exit and continue posting. What's the point?
2.
by prvit 4y ago
But that information isn’t public, it’s only visible to law enforcement. This is how company ownership information should be treated too.
3.
by prvit 4y ago
Because the Guardian says so.
4.
by prvit 4y ago
This is a solved problem, you can simply refuse to work with charities that don’t share such information.
5.
by prvit 4y ago
So? The name of that person doesn’t need to be public for the courts to be able to hold them accountable.
6.
by prvit 4y ago
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.
7.
by prvit 4y ago
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 lega
8.
by prvit 4y ago
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.
9.
by prvit 4y ago
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?
10.
by prvit 4y ago
Why is it any more of a public activity than working for a company?
11.
by prvit 4y ago
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).
12.
by prvit 4y ago
> 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?
13.
by prvit 4y ago
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 go
14.
by prvit 4y ago
Because there is no “client list”.
15.
by prvit 4y ago
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.
16.
by prvit 4y ago
I didn’t forget what I wrote, I just exist in the real world where missiles are a bigger threat than hackers.
17.
by prvit 4y ago
These are criminals, they can install microsoft office and create fake proof of purchase. Completely pointless idea.
18.
by prvit 4y ago
> They aren't suffering more than poor. But they are suffering more than they would if given the ability to post bail.
19.
by prvit 4y ago
> 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
20.
by prvit 4y ago
> 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 th
21.
by prvit 4y ago
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
22.
by prvit 4y ago
> 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 propert
23.
by prvit 4y ago
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 se
24.
by prvit 4y ago
There is literally nothing Amazon can do.
25.
by prvit 4y ago
Amazon is not knowingly selling stolen items, at least not in the sense meant by the law.
26.
by prvit 4y ago
We’re discussing a new phenomenon that has only recently showed up in the US.
27.
by prvit 4y ago
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 Ker
28.
by prvit 4y ago
>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 ot
29.
by prvit 4y ago
>2019
30.
by prvit 4y ago
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

More ›