[LINK] Tax Office selling ABN details

[Brenda Aynsley]

richard@auscoms.com.au wrote:

[snip]

> Without sticking my neck out in the privacy debate, I'd suggest that any person
> conducting a business transaction with either a company or sole trader has a
> right to information about that company or sole trader. What's offensive is (a)
> having to pay a US-based publisher for information which should be available on
> the public record; and (b) a lack of restriction on further use or onselling of
> that information.
>

No argument there

> However, if I decide to hang a shingle saying "Richard Chirgwin Homewares" or
> such like, then I do so at the cost of some level of personal privacy. Customers
> and suppliers both have a right to know that 'Richard Chirgwin' exists, where I
> live (as protection against debt default), and so on. But the right of ACCESS to
>

rubbish, only the provider of credit to richard chirgwin homewares requires anything
like that information and perhaps customers too in the case of RCH's provision of
guarantees or warrantees, although much of that is done at the manufacturers level
these days.


> that information should be equal: if a customer or supplier needs it, their
> access should not be restricted to them (a) knowing that D&B exists and (b)
> having the money to pay for access.
>

it's not, if I enter into a commercial arrangement in either of those roles it
behoves me to find out that information before I commit to a relationship, if its of
concern to me, and presumably you'll tell me that at that point in time, if you want
to do business with me.


> In corporate transactions, the situation is even clearer (IMNSHO). It's already
> clear that complex schemes of ownership are too easily exploited to hide who
> owns a business, and in part to hide the fact that a particular business is a
> scam. Part of the reason that the dishonest get away with this is that the cost
> of hunting backwards through a dozen or so shareholder registers, at $20 a pop
> and escalating depending on the nature of the document you want, is prohibitive.
>

so where's the problem then?  Is it at the level which provides the "covering
ability" for ownership?  Does that then mean we need to change ownership laws to
make this 'scamability" harder to achieve and ownership more transparent?  Gosh ....

> And the outcome of _that_, Linkers, is that if you've plenty of money, you're in
> a better position to avoid the dodgy companies than if you're a small or sole
> investor. In other words, the ability to assess risk is inhibited by government
> policy.

I'd say at this point, "what's new" richard, nothing has changed, I doubt that
Linkers would even think this is so new either, we've known this argument to be a
self evident truth for a very long time I suspect.

--
Filters' Collateral damage will limit what you can legally see
 See http://rene.efa.org.au/liberty/rdocs/apprfilters0001.html
Tell your Local Federal Member this will hurt our e-businesses
 Australian Net users need education, not inadequate "solutions"
For more info visit http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/99.html
--
Brenda Aynsley,BA,DipSocSci(sociology),DipAppSci(computing),MACS
http://www.iss.net.au/bpabio.html
Internet Support Services Australia Pty Ltd ABN 90 069 346 327
Internet Educator, Website Developer, Computer Support person
Phone:+61 8 8357 8844 Fax:+61 8 8373 3829 Mobile:+61 412 662 988