
Autograph hunting in Companies House - edent
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/05/autograph-hunting-in-companies-house/
======
gorgoiler
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?

------
Sheepsteak
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...](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01591116/filing-
history/MTYwMzM0NjA4YWRpcXprY3g/document?format=pdf&download=0)

~~~
edent
Good find!

------
dreen
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.

------
dylan604
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.

------
Silhouette
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.

~~~
raesene9
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.

~~~
Silhouette
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.

------
lihaciudaniel
Thanks for the Monty Python one.

------
londons_explore
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...

~~~
IanCal
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...](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-
licence/version/3/)

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.

