I would say private, because otherwise nobody would sign petitions (the chilling effect) if they feared they would be targeted by others for exercising their rights.

Donors lists and contributions (except for charity) should not be confidential, but signing petitions should be. Posting them online make sit even worse.

Do you think a petition is meant to be a public declaration of your opinion?

The petition itself can be a public statement, but signing it only asserts your agreement not whether others should have access to the rosters of signatures. If those that sign want to do so openly, by all means, but I think we should err on the side of privacy.

Believe me I see your point of privacy, but I think people who sign petitions that engage the legislative process become part of the public record.

Petitions of this sort have to be open to the public so that anyone with a demonstrable interest in the matter can ask that the signatures can be verified. This cannot be done without disclosure.

That's a good point Jorjor, but I still think the public has a right to know who is behind political movements. I think it's just a matter of record when a petition is signed because it is a public declaration, especially regarding civil rights issues that engage the legislative process.

All that is true, but I still have a problem with using such information to "name & shame" people on the Internet as the clip seems to suggest. After all if you think signing a petition will open you to attack (and we all know the kind of people that troll the internet).

I respect your point Rat, but I still feel strongly that people who influence the legislative process have no right to be shielded from public scrutiny. If these people are willing to take away civil rights from another group of people, they ought to stand accountable for their positions.

Here is another interesting article Jorjor and Rat:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?th&emc=th