It's Easy To Steal Identities (Of Corporations) 140
jfruh writes "Two lawyers in Houston were able to exploit business filing systems to seize control of dormant publicly traded corporations — and then profit by pushing their worthless stock. In many states, anyone can change important information about a publicly registered company — including the corporate officers or company contact information — without any confirmation that they have anything to do with the company in the first place. Massachusetts requires a password to do this through the state registry's website, but they'll give you the password if you call and ask for it. Long focused on individual ID theft, state governments are finally beginning to realize that corporate ID theft is a huge problem as well."
Wouldn't that just be corporate fraud? (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't that just be corporate fraud? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Just like Soylent Green?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Corporate Fraud? Deceptive conduct? Could the lawyers get disbarred?
Fraudulently taking control of a dormant corporation and defrauding investors is not corporate fraud. It's business ethics (which is different from business intelligence). Get your oxymorons straight... "corporate fraud" isn't even an oxymoron!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers for clearing that up. Still wondering if the lawyers involved can be disbarred though.
That would require *someone* in the legal system to have a shred of integrity. In short, no.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be a SOX violation. But as long as you donate to the DNC you will not be charged with such, just ask John Corzine who fraudently stole $1.2 Billion in 401ks and Holder's department said there was no wrong doing.
I say go ahead and do it and just put 25% of what you make to the DNC and you will be free and clear. Why bother complaining about corruption when its so blatent and obvious anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't that just be corporate fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate Fraud? Deceptive conduct? Could the lawyers get disbarred?
I would hope so.
Either way, now that the Federal indictment has gotten through -- getting disbarred is the least of their worries right now.
Re:Wouldn't that just be corporate fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could the lawyers get disbarred?
Well, if a hacker can go to jail for hacking some online system then disclosing how they did it (to improve security, without even charging service fees), then Lawyers should face the same punishment too.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if a hacker can go to jail for hacking some online system then disclosing how they did it (to improve security, without even charging service fees), then Lawyers should face the same punishment too.
But but but, they are not piraaates!
Yaaaaaaar. We aaaaaar.
*goes away limping*
Re: (Score:2)
Could the lawyers get disbarred?
Well, if a hacker can go to jail for hacking some online system then disclosing how they did it (to improve security, without even charging service fees), then Lawyers should face the same punishment too.
Actually, lawyer face more punishment. Not only can they go to jail and get disbarred, but after they get out of jail, it will be much harder for them to get a job again--actually, it will be illegal for them to work as lawyers unless the bar re-admits them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not MORE punishment, thats the same punishment we all face, loss of prospects.
If all prospects are equal, sure. But (1) nobody can hire the disbarred attorney as an attorney, even if they want to, and (2) it is a crime for him to work as an attorney. Felons who work in other fields can be hired, it's just hard for them to find a job, and they are rarely legally prohibited from working in a profession they've dedicated their lives to.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, you said ANAL.
They need not have bothered (Score:2)
Boo frickin' Hoo (Score:2, Insightful)
As Munchkin said, this is just fraud. Corporations are NOT people, they can't have their ID stolen.
And given the way that the corps have been raping the public lately, I find it hard to be sympathetic.
Re:Boo frickin' Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, corporations are not people are not companies are not businesses, otherwise we wouldn't make the point of distinguishing them with different names.
Also obviously, ID "theft" isn't really theft, because you aren't (fully) denying that person their own identity.
TFA (if you bothered to read it) is about "identity thieves" who masquerade as executives of the corporation, when they are in fact not. The point here, is that corporations are agreements (contracts) among people, and "corporate ID theft" causes illegitimate harm to very real individuals.
Overall, the point of TFA is better authentication is needed for government and other organizations who do business with the corporation (i.e., properly authenticating the members of the corporation as people with the lawful ability to make such decisions).
Re:Boo frickin' Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll accept that a corporation is people.
I will not accept that a corporation is a person (of its own).
There's a big difference there.
-uso.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll accept that a corporation is people.
Even if it's the Soylent Corporation?
Re:Boo frickin' Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between "personhood" and being a legal entity. Corporations are legal entities, in that they can perform legal actions, but they are not natural persons, for obvious reasons. In most countries (such as those in Europe), the distinction between legal persons and natural persons is made. This because natural persons have additional rights (beyond the obvious human rights).
Simple example: consumer law applies to natural persons trading with a legal person, but not to trade between different legal persons (ie. business to business transactions). If you have your own one-man company, buying for yourself or for the company still matters.
I'm not sure what the US perspective is, but from the complaining on /., it seems that the problem is that rights intended for natural persons is attributed to legal persons (ie. corporations). That's not a good idea. Here's an example why:
Imagine that corporations would send money to politicians, hiding it by claiming "privacy". Obviously, privacy is a right intended for natural persons (some formulations of human rights include a definition of privacy). Corporations do not need a right to privacy*. And it is easily exploited for blatant corruption.
Okay, that is a huge hyperbole, but I think it clarifies the point.
* obviously, they do have the right to kick you off their property. Property is attributed to legal persons.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine that corporations would send money to politicians, hiding it by claiming "privacy". Obviously, privacy is a right intended for natural persons (some formulations of human rights include a definition of privacy). Corporations do not need a right to privacy*. And it is easily exploited for blatant corruption.
It's worth noting that corporations and businesses in general can have and can protect "trade secrets". But many actions such as the above campaign contributions/bribes aren't considered trade secrets and hence, aren't protected by this limited right.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that corporations would send money to politicians, hiding it by claiming "privacy". Obviously, privacy is a right intended for natural persons (some formulations of human rights include a definition of privacy). Corporations do not need a right to privacy*. And it is easily exploited for blatant corruption.
You have it backwards; in the US wealthy people setup shell corporations that donate to "Super PACs" in a way that allows the donors to remain anonymous. That way billionaires can corrupt politics without the negative publicity that should come with donating millions to a political campaign. When ordinary people give to political campaigns, that information is (in theory) available [fec.gov] to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
is a legal interface with traditional government-run courts that is too technical for most people to understand.
Fairly simple when I took law. What difficulty were you having?
A contractual agreement can exist in perpetuity as original founders sell out, die, etc
This is useful, but legal personhood is a disproportionate response to the need.
but ultimately a corporation exists based on the Rights of the contemporary shareholders / parties to contract.
No. A corporation exists based on the "rights" (lol@religious capitalisation) of contemporary shareholders not to be fully responsible for what they do. They get full enjoyment of profits but can, when shit and fan are in alignment, socialise their losses.
The root of the "corporations are not people" hysteria is socialists trying to deny Rights (speech, liberty, property, etc) to individuals they don't like or want to rob.
On the contrary, a capitalist would want to return rights to debtors, responsibility to tortfeasors, &c.
Re: (Score:2)
This is useful, but legal personhood is a disproportionate response to the need.
You claim to have "took law". Surely, you read up on the history of corporate personhood. Basically, it came about due to abuses of government power. Without such protection, governments from local on up to federal level could seize or tax corporation property in a way that they couldn't do for personally owned property. In other words, it came about as a legitimate reaction to existing threats. I think that makes it a proportionate response.
No. A corporation exists based on the "rights" (lol@religious capitalisation) of contemporary shareholders not to be fully responsible for what they do. They get full enjoyment of profits but can, when shit and fan are in alignment, socialise their losses.
It's worth noting here that shareholders in such situations typica
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, you read up on the history of corporate personhood.
In which country? Or are we about to argue that America invented the corporation ("public company")?
Basically, it came about due to abuses of government power. Without such protection, governments from local on up to federal level could seize or tax corporation property in a way that they couldn't do for personally owned property.
Sigh. Everything in America is about abuse from the gubmint, isn't it? Can you think of less severe responses to the concern that corporations were being disadvantaged?
In other words, it came about as a legitimate reaction to existing threats. I think that makes it a proportionate response.
I know Anglo-Saxon law hasn't historically had much of a notion of proportionate, but it is a well developed notion in EU (i.e. Roman) law. A proportionate response is one which goes no further than necessary to achieve the aims - whether somet
Re: (Score:3)
In which country? Or are we about to argue that America invented the corporation ("public company")?
Given that the whining is only about the status of US corporations, it's pretty obvious that we're only speaking of US corporations.
Sigh. Everything in America is about abuse from the gubmint, isn't it? Can you think of less severe responses to the concern that corporations were being disadvantaged?
The argument is sufficient. No need to go any further.
And the whole problem with modern shareholding is that the shareholders are typically neither experts in the corporations' interests nor deeply involved.
So wave that magic education wand so that investors are no longer ignorant. Capital rarely starts in the hands of the people who best understand the business.
"So it doesn't make sense to put such an investor on the hook when they typically don't want to be responsible enough to justify that level of responsibility."
That is the point. Investors don't want to be at that level of responsibility. Corporations provide a way to give capital to a business without assuming a high level of
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the whining is only about the status of US corporations, it's pretty obvious that we're only speaking of US corporations.
That's stupid. The US did not develop in a vacuum.
So wave that magic education wand so that investors are no longer ignorant. Capital rarely starts in the hands of the people who best understand the business.
It's the responsibility of the investors to educate themselves.
That is the point. Investors don't want to be at that level of responsibility. Corporations provide a way to give capital to a business without assuming a high level of responsibility.
I don't want shitty corporations getting investment because investors don't "want" responsibility for what they own. It helps no-one. Stop socialising your debt, moochers!
This is why I love competing governments. If one government gets a bad idea (say like supporting your "thought" above), then we can always move ourselves and our assets to other countries which haven't gone so insane.
I'm sure you'll be sorely missed. The West is doing just so well since bigger businessmen began to almost entirely rely on the fact that they would not be ruined by the destruction of their companies. And China is doing just awf
Re: (Score:2)
That's stupid. The US did not develop in a vacuum.
Well, name that other country which has people protesting about corporate personhood. As far as I can tell, this is strictly a US affair even though the US is not unusual in how it treats corporations.
I don't want shitty corporations getting investment because investors don't "want" responsibility for what they own. It helps no-one. Stop socialising your debt, moochers!
It helps lots of people. It helps the people who create or grow businesses. It helps the people who are employed by these businesses. It helps everyone who depends on one of the above or who trades with them. They pay taxes which helps people dependent on those taxes.
This is why I love competing governments. If one government gets a bad idea (say like supporting your "thought" above), then we can always move ourselves and our assets to other countries which haven't gone so insane.
I'm sure you'll be sorely missed. The West is doing just so well since bigger businessmen began to almost entirely rely on the fact that they would not be ruined by the destruction of their companies. And China is doing just awfully for regulating larger businesses against that sort of behaviour.
A country doesn't usually destroy itself in
Re: (Score:2)
Well, name that other country which has people protesting about corporate personhood. As far as I can tell, this is strictly a US affair even though the US is not unusual in how it treats corporations.
You mean "as far as my knowledge reaches". Those on the left (and there are far more of them without the US than within) argue it all the time, but to confirm that it's not just hippies, ultra-conservative groups have been arguing against corporate personhood [jubilee-centre.org] since forever. The question is sufficiently unsettled that it's a fairly standard question for law students [sjol.co.uk].
t helps lots of people. It helps the people who create or grow businesses. It helps the people who are employed by these businesses. It helps everyone who depends on one of the above or who trades with them. They pay taxes which helps people dependent on those taxes.
So does my holding a gun to rich people's heads and forcing them to give over money for my business ventures - except that it doesn't, because i
Re: (Score:2)
ultra-conservative groups have been arguing against corporate personhood since forever. The question is sufficiently unsettled that it's a fairly standard question for law students.
Look at your links. Concerned about the effects of limited liability is not the same as concern about corporate personhood.
So does my holding a gun to rich people's heads and forcing them to give over money for my business ventures - except that it doesn't, because investments are supposed to be wise, not based on arbitrary whim.
What's the point of bringing up a counterexample that you know is wrong and readily admit in the very same sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
Look at your links. Concerned about the effects of limited liability is not the same as concern about corporate personhood.
So what else is there about corporate personhood which is of significant concern?
What's the point of bringing up a counterexample that you know is wrong and readily admit in the very same sentence?
Eh? From a system PoV, it's faulty for the same reason that limited liability shareholding is faulty: investors are not being rewarded for choosing a portfolio of net profitable investments. Instead they can invest stupidly knowing that they're not fully responsible for what they own.
Armchair investors don't care because they're not the ones doing the work, and they're not the ones suffering when businessmen have to close busin
Re: (Score:2)
So what else is there about corporate personhood which is of significant concern?
The creation of technical rights which empower agents of the corporation in ways that some people don't desire. This can occur even with the elimination of limited liability, hence, why it is a different issue.
Eh? From a system PoV, it's faulty for the same reason that limited liability shareholding is faulty: investors are not being rewarded for choosing a portfolio of net profitable investments. Instead they can invest stupidly knowing that they're not fully responsible for what they own.
Eh? The counterexample is faulty because it's not a counterexample. Limited liability by your point of view is faulty because shareholders aren't completely responsible for the actions of the company. There's no relation between the two.
Armchair investors don't care because they're not the ones doing the work, and they're not the ones suffering when businessmen have to close businesses and workers lose their jobs because people who owe them money don't have to pay.
And where is the capital going to come from when only the deeply
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't the other posters intent to provide a counterexample it was his intent to show fault in the logic you used. The strategy of taking another persons logic and showing the flaws in it by using it to produce absurdity is a well known strategy and is quite useful
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the other posters intent to provide a counterexample it was his intent to show fault in the logic you used.
Well, I suppose that might be what was tried, but not the outcome. He was claiming limited liability which as I stated "helps lots of people" was something like holding a gun to a rich person's head, and wait, no it's not.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a big difference there.
The grammar error? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the age of consent for that is usually around 16, not 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're a fool. Only Republicans believe corporations are people. But they also believe there's a deity out there that gives a shit about their little lives and that the Earth is only 6000 years old. According to the dictionary, people are: Human beings in general or considered collectively. Last I checked, a corporation is not a human being.
Re: (Score:1)
The mistake you made here is when you register the domain, you do remain a person, but the domain name does not magically become one.Similarly, the Smith Family is not a person, though it may be a set whose members are people.
I am eating a banana. It belongs to me. It does not magically become a person because I am a person and I own it. This is good, because cannibalism is explicitly illegal here.
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood that whole "corporations are not people" nonsense.
Composition or aggregation, not inheritance. It is false that a corporation isa person. It is true that a corporation hasa person or multiple people.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that Corporations could not donate to Political Campaigns would not infringe on individuals making donations in their own names.
Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees with this position.
Speech by corporations (Score:2)
Well, I don't quite know if the Supreme Court disagrees with that. They said in Citizens United that corps could exercise political speech, not that they could donate an unlimited amount to campaigns.
So, there's still a limit to sending a check to a campaign, but you can use whatever media you choose to get your message out (whatever that may be).
If you think about it, it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Because if you want to restrict the ability of Citizens United to sell videotapes about Clinton,
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I think that the DISCLOSE Act is a good idea. Allowing Corporations access to their protected speech. But not allowing them to hide that Protect Speech behind a SuperPAC. If a Corporation wants to exert its right to speech, let the C
Re: (Score:2)
Now back to reality.
Corporations *are* people. They have the same rights as the individuals that formed them (and not an iota more).
OK, hold it right there. What you're describing isn't a corporation. It's called a "general partnership". The general partnership exists in the state of nature. You don't need a system of laws to create it, you just get together with other people and pool your resources.
A corporation is a different animal. It has features *defined by the law* that an association doesn't have, the chief of which is a legal personhood distinct from that of its owners. You, as an stockholder, are not responsible for its cont
Re: (Score:2)
Also obviously, ID "theft" isn't really theft, because you aren't (fully) denying that person their own identity.
ID theft is called ID theft because back when it was fraud it was the Bank's problem. Whereas now that it's "ID theft" it's the Customer's problem.
See the difference? OK so I'm being a bit too cynical...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the grandparents point, and I agree. Is that to be consistent in our own thinking we should really call it, "identity infringement".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, corporations are not people are not companies are not businesses, otherwise we wouldn't make the point of distinguishing them with different names.
That's about as obvious as humans not being people, because we distinguish them with different names. You may reach the right conclusion, but it's not for the right reason.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, now we *know* you're from that alternate universe where Spock has a beard. Thanks for confirming!
Re: (Score:2)
He is right, in order to preserve the rights of individuals we MUST preserve the rights of corporations which really are just individuals. I have no problem with the legal fiction that corporations are people, and I agree they ought to have ALL the same rights. What is missing is they should face the same risks. Obviously you can't jail a corporation but you can freeze assests and bar them from doing business under their trade name when they break the law.
We through kids in jail for writing mail worms, w
Re: (Score:2)
So when the negligent actions of a corporation cause a death, which board member(s) get sent to jail, etc?
Re: (Score:3)
Here is your 'alternative Universe' with almost 30,000,000 corporations counted.
From your link, there were 5,847,000 total corporations in 2008 who filed returns. That's a lot, about one per 50 people, but well under 30,000,000 corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
Most corporations are small businesses and hundreds of thousands of corporations are 1 men shows that operate as contractors.
Are you sure? When I formed a corporation, there was a requirement that there be 3 or more shareholders. Otherwise it's an LLC for a one-man show, or a limited partnership for a 2-man show. I have a personal business license in multiple countries and multiple states within the US. But I'm not incorporated anywhere. I had to take out a business license to be a contractor, though my business has the same SSN and I do, and isn't a corporation.
so not allowing a corporation to have the rights of people means that people cannot use their money within their own full rights (for example without the right of free speech, the government could prevent a corporation that competed with a government protected monopoly from advertising
Sorry, I thought I was replying to a rational person. There's
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? When I formed a corporation, there was a requirement that there be 3 or more shareholders. Otherwise it's an LLC for a one-man show, or a limited partnership for a 2-man show.
There is the S corporation. It can have one owner.
Sorry, I thought I was replying to a rational person. There's nothing in restrictions against a corporation that restricts a person. You can take your salary and donate it to a candidate or advertise with it. You can't direct a corporation to spend its money in a manner that violates law. Just because you, as a director, can't make your corporation do certain things doesn't mean you, as a person have the same restrctions, thus laws restricting a corporation do not restrict people at all (just the pool of money they use to fund their speech).
The concern over corporate rights isn't to provide an opportunity to do things that would be illegal as a person. But instead to do things that would otherwise be legal for a person to do. Such laws would restrict your personal actions as a agent of the corporation and would restrict the personal actions and interests of the people who own shares in the corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Such laws would restrict your personal actions as a agent of the corporation and would restrict the personal actions and interests of the people who own shares in the corporation.
A lawyer is restricted in what he can do for a client. It isn't a violation of his First Amendment Rights that the lawyer can't present hearsay in court. The corporation has its rights restricted (because it has no rights). But the people working for or owning the corporation are free to do whatever they wish. They can direct the court to take an illegal act, and in most cases in the US, the corporation may be held liable, but the person acting as the corporation at that point is shielded. Punishing a
Re: (Score:1)
In Canada [google.com] all contractors that I am aware of (maybe 80 people) are incorporated. 1 man corporations. In Germany [formacompany.com] and Switzerland I know a couple of dozen people who do the same, also incorporated.
I am sure many people can post here, confirming their own experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, exactly my point. If we want to wonder why we're having so many problems with ID Fraud, it's because the Federal government mandated that banks accept a fundamentally insecure standards for banking, and then insulated them from the damages it causes to their customers (The Check-21 act, regulations locking us into using the same credit card number for every transaction, not checking for valid check ids, and others).
Re: (Score:2)
That said: Corporations are not the victim here. The investors who end up buying worthless stock are.
Re:Boo frickin' Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with whether corporations are people, even an IP packet has an ID. And packets can have their ID stolen. What sequence of logic did you go through to convince yourself that corporations can't have their ID stolen merely because they are not people?
Secondly, you have to understand that real people got ripped off here, in bad stock deals, etc. You're not supposed to feel sorry for the corporation, you're supposed to feel sorry for the people who got ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment
compared to mangled quote:
"THE [fundamental principle of science]: that the sole test of validity for any idea is experiment."
We see that while things have been moved around slightly, no change in actual meaning has occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, the "almost" is incredibly fucking important and leaving it out twists the meaning and pretends you have Feynman on your side when you say stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think Feynman didn't want to test his theories about physics?
Re: (Score:2)
That is what you are implying by mangling the quote.
It's amusing that you go on about "basic grammar" after taking something out of context and mangling it in such a way, and I care as little about your grammar as you apear to care about the scientific process, which oddly enough starts some time before the final answers of an experiment come in.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think a theoretical physicist meant that theoretical physics is not science until it is tested? That is what you are implying by mangling the quote.
How does it imply that? I understand it to mean that we don't know if it's true or not until it's tested. And that is correct, we don't know if a hypothesis is correct until it is tested.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, now you know why I think you are "dumber" than the post above that you labelled "dumb".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That just means he's ignorant AND old.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are NOT people, they can't have their ID stolen.
What about LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships)? Are they people? We use a DBA (doing business as ___) so that the three of us can more easily collect earnings via selling a product of our collaboration. (The alternative: Buy our software! Just send three separate payments to three different folks! -- Uh, no.) LLPs help limit the liability from each other, not from the business entity itself (it's purpose is to keep me from being liable for things my colleagues do). A LLP is a legal fiction just lik
side-effect? (Score:2)
An unexpected side-effect of "corporations are people too" ?
Corporations 101 (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation is a "legal entity" (a concept not unlike like a domain name or a handle) created through voluntary consent of the people who established a binding contractual agreement. Different individuals may be subject to different contracts and perform different functions: part-owners, partners, board members, employees of various levels of responsibility and compensation, and of course (usually quite informally) the customers.
Before investing in a company, an investor (or a consultant / broker acting on her behalf, or the institution facilitating the exchange, or an industry publication, etc) can investigate the company and see if it has sufficient policies to ensure secure operations, which would include preventing unauthorized individuals from issuing authoritative communications on behalf of the corporation. If the involved people fail to do this, it is their fault, and they are responsible for their losses.
The involvement of government bureaucrats in this process should not be necessary. Even the supposed benefits that governments provide to corporations (a centralized registry, undue liability limitations, etc) ultimately do more harm to the marketplace than good. The government currently exists as the default arbitrator [wikipedia.org] and enforcer of contracts, but there's no need for this function to be a monopoly [wikipedia.org]. In a sufficiently advanced society, multiple agencies can exist to protect Rights and enforce contracts [wikipedia.org] - just as long as boundaries of their jurisdiction (which need not be geographical) are clearly and openly defined in advance.
Corporate law should be like programming - you have to think about security and implement appropriate restrictions yourself.
(Signed: AlexLibman's sockpuppet [slashdot.org].)
Re:Corporations 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
>The involvement of government bureaucrats in this process should not be necessary.
>should
You use that word, but we don't live in that fantasy land.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I don't often come across someone on Slashdot who I think is mad, but I think you are.
Incidentally, assume I am very rich. The first thing I would do when private defence forces come in is take all your land and make you work as a slave on my plantation, because you annoy me and are - as you admit yourself - sufficiently unpopular that few will come to your defence. Go go free market definition of personhood!
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations would not exist without governments; a corporation is not just an agreement between shareholders, it's a bundle of rights that are enforced against the world, by the State. The shareholders enter into the corporate ownership agreement because they know that they'll be protected from personal liability by the actions of the corporation, among other reasons. The only way they can do this is if the State says they can and is willing to back up that statement with the support of the courts and the
Cyber (Score:2)
I'm sorry on three counts. A) I read the article; B) I read the author's profile; and C) I lost it and disregarded everything I read when the author described himself a cyber-this and cyber-that and having provided commentary on cyber-whatever.
Don't worry, I got this (Score:3, Funny)
I'm the CEO of Lifelock and we're putting together a special package for corporations to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Additionally, if you'd like to invest in our company(whose stock will obviously be rising soon because of this great new service) I'd be more than willing to sell you a few shares right now.
This problem will be quickly solved (Score:2)
If you as an individual have your identity stolen you will still be shit of of luck. No authority will be looking for individuals using your identity. You will have to spend huge amounts of time and effort proving to federal, state and business enti
Identity Theft - Not really a crime (Score:3, Funny)
Identity theft is not really a crime. It's like Music or Movie Piracy. You are just creating a copy of another person's identity. You are not depriving him of his identity. Once the copy of the identity has been made, both of them can use the identity.
Errr.... no. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you were joking.
Two people cannot use the same identity at the same time. Attempts to, say obtain two valid Driver's Licenses, Passports, and voter registrations simultaneously doesn't work too well. Not to mention the fun around tax time.
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case anyone is interested there is an important difference between copying and trying to present that copy as an original work from a person or company. If you didn't have laws granting monopolies of IP like copyright and patents you would be able to copy works and sell them. But you wouldn't be allowed to commit fraud. What's the difference? You would be able to sell a copy of a design, movie, or song but you couldn't represent it as produced by the original creator. Take fashion. You could create
Address Change Notice (Score:1)
How stupid are investors? (Score:4, Interesting)
"...the scammers took control of the companies and then obtained legitimate CUSIP numbers and stock trading symbols that were then used to push the worthless stock on unsuspecting investors...."
Hi, I have a stock to sell you. It's for a company that may appear to have been founded in 1975, but there is no history, no financial statements, no background, no product, and nothing really to back up what I'm telling you the stock is worth. How many shares would you like? But it has a legitimate stock trading symbol!
Seriously, this is only a tiny step away from selling the Brooklyn Bridge or land in Florida. If someone is so stupid that they would invest their cash in such a company with no research, I'd say they deserve to lose that money. If a hedge fund or something is stupid enough to invest in such a fund, that manager should lose his job at least, and the reputation of the fund should suffer by public announcement of their stupidity.
Really people, what part of 'caveat emptor' is too complicated to understand?
Phone call.. (Score:2)
"Yes, I have controlling rights, just delist it. The company and its products are worthless anyway."
Too Easy (Score:2)
I registered an LLC a few weeks ago. After a few days I wanted to change the name of the LLC. All I had to do was agree that I had the legal right to change the business documents by hitting the okay button. No password. No identity check. Just had to hit the okay button.
This theft doesn't surprise me. Its way too easy to do.
Flushing shelf corporations (Score:3)
This problem is related to "shelf corporations", ones with no activity that are still considered active. It's an abandoned account problem. What's probably necessary is to "lock" corporations that don't show any activity (annual report, tax return) in 18 months. Some countries and states mark corporations as "inactive" when they are, and may need to tighten up on how "inactive" status is ended.
Some US states, notably Nevada, don't require reports of a change in control. Those are especially vulnerable. Often, the "corporate officers" listed for a Nevada company are all an employee of some "Incorporate in Nevada" service that originally filed the paperwork. So there's no way the state of Nevada can validate that change requests come from a legitimate party.
Two lawyers in Houston (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)