It's not clear what you intend to do with these names, but I don't see anything good coming out of it.
As to what intent there is with those names, it could be boycotting products/services from certain organizations -- which is a very valid and legal form of protest.
If you’re fearful of your name being public, associated with this line of work, you should probably reevaluate your actions.
If you support or participate in the further tightening of copyright (when considering how extreme copyright law already is), you are the enemy, and citizens are well within their rights to publicly document your actions.
Whether people are married to their ideas through money or ideology, you are left with little recourse. History is written by the victor, not the noble.
When one group wants people like yourself to lose medical care and die where is the middle position?
Ultimately I expect them to eventually react violently to losing power and have to be put down by force in order to preserve some notion of democracy.
On perhaps your side of the pond it seems that one side wants to strangle the medium for culture and civilization in order to make a few bucks in hopes that a fraction will stick to their hands. These people are surely personally your enemy whether you recognize it or not.
When has attacking an abstract idea ever accomplished anything?
Who was the enemy in that movement? Did making lists of enemies help? Or was it more battle of ideas where people's minds were changed pver time?
Unfortunately I have a feeling we're about to see this scenario unfold with respect to gay marriage and LGBTQ issues in general. Theocrats do not like to lose, any more than copyright maximalists do.
It's kind of scary to start assembling lists of peoples' names that are your opponents.
If you want to defeat your opponents, a great thing to do. Keep track of them. The best service you can give to an enemy, is to forget him.
>My opponents are bad laws and bad ideas. Let's make lists of those.
Don't you think that bad ideas are possessed by bad people?
In my view of the world, the root of all good and bad are the people. People's deeds and ideas don't live separate lives from physical human beings having/doing them.
Individual people may have both good ideas and bad ideas, and those may change over time.
Lists of opponents' names are a really bad solution because they ignore the distinction between people and ideas.
Dude — already happening.
Just demonstrating that you know a lot of even remotely private information about somebody is a very effective intimidation method.
Let's imagine a world where as you suggest, corporation names are revealed but not individuals. Well, where does that leave us? Maybe I'll just go as myself instead of my company. I won't represent my company, I just happen to be its CEO, its chief lobbyist, or whatever.
So no, we'd need full transparency. This kind of thing is common among various branches of democratic governments. Presidents' schedules are usually mostly public, fundings of various sorts are public, etc.
Opaqueness leads to darkness.
It's also extremely weird how a satire political party regularly makes the most sense by bluntly stating like it is.
Maybe that's the actual secret to proper politics: Saying it like it is, spiced up with some fun.
It's a matter of finding out how; you can probably just ask the right people and you will have your answer.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/2...