commit dc96d34101e35cf1300afa465de009467bf341b9
parent 09457bef8b8e0d4d912e9323a3da4ce6eb1bf521
Author: Jonathan <ondesmartenot@riseup.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:56:08 +0800
Chapter 6: remove redundant text and reword for clarity
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/ethic.tex b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/ethic.tex
@@ -1,15 +1,18 @@
\section{Ethics considerations}
Ethical considerations are at the root of this project.
-At their essence, donations are ethical acts that empower third parties to act in a manner compatible with the value system of the donor.
-Current systems oblige donors to go on record and report their donations to their government,
-explicitly linking them to the causes and institutions they support.
-This has a self-censoring or chilling effect, due to fear of potential future repercussions in complex and volatile political climates:
-information may linger inside of the bureaucratic system and later cause unforeseeable harm.
-Support for certain organizations and their linked causes
-can lead not only to stigmatization but also to physical harassment, or far worse.
-Such concerns about real-world consequences of revealing one's support for various causes creates stress for donors,
-and the current approach to provide tax benefits for donations encroaches on the privacy of those who do not wish to reveal who they support.
+At their essence, donations are ethical acts in which individuals empower third parties to act in a manner compatible with the value system of the donor.
+In addition to protecting the privacy of the donor, and thus allowing them to give to charity without fear of repercussions, the Donau system has several other effects, which we consider from an ethical standpoint.
+We briefly discuss two of them here, namely: 1) the risk of criminals using the Donau for money laundering, and 2) the (dis)proportionality of administrative burden on charities.
+
+%Current systems oblige donors to go on record and report their donations to their government,
+%explicitly linking them to the causes and institutions they support.
+%This has a self-censoring or chilling effect, due to fear of potential future repercussions in complex and volatile political climates:
+%information may linger inside of the bureaucratic system and later cause unforeseeable harm.
+%Support for certain organizations and their linked causes
+%can lead not only to stigmatization but also to physical harassment, or far worse.
+%Such concerns about real-world consequences of revealing one's support for various causes creates stress for donors,
+%and the current approach to provide tax benefits for donations encroaches on the privacy of those who do not wish to reveal who they support.
\input{threats}
