Alex Bradbury is completely right: "open rights" is worse than vague and confusing, it's positively misleading.
The proverbial man on the street is pretty hazy about rights in the first place (as witness the ease with which the Tory press whipped up public skepticism about the Human Rights Act). And the term "open" is the worst form of spin-doctored weasel word: you can use it in conjunction with any noun you like to mean just about anything ("open prisons" anyone?).
You can call the organization "the open rights group" if you want, but frankly it sounds more like some sort of industry standards body than a campaigning organization. Compromising on the name means compromising on the direction -- it's no coincidence that the National Council for Civil Liberties lost its way at the same time it changed it's name to "Liberty" (in some kind of whacky font).
"National Campaign for Digital Liberties" sort-of works (there should be a "civil" in there, but that would make it way too cumbersome). Or -- hell, this is evil -- Liberty, now the domain of careerist Blairites, dropped a perfectly good name: why not call ourselves the "National Council for Civil Liberties"?
(And no, I'm only half-kidding.)Charlie Stross 在 16 天前。