commit f3d7d30ed1a84c87ec4104304988185e1a7e2d6b
parent bb764dc14f5044a2bce213bc2ccb06f87ba86f0f
Author: Jonathan <ondesmartenot@riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:35:33 +0800
reformat for readability/editability, comments, url, slight rewordings
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/ethic.tex b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/ethic.tex
@@ -1,9 +1,24 @@
\section*{Ethics considerations and compliance with the open science policy}
-Ethical considerations were at the root of this project. At their essence, donations are ethical acts outsourcing a moral drive for change to a third party that (promises to) act on them in a manner that is compatible with the value system of a donor. Current systems oblige people making donations to charities to go on record and report to their government the donations made, explicitly linking them to the causes and institution(s) supported. This has a self-censoring or chilling effect due to fear for future potential repercussions in complex and volatile political climates: information may linger on inside the bureaucratic system, and later cause unforeseeable harm. Such concerns about real-world ramifications on personal choices in the ethical domain cause stress to donors, and the current approach encroaches on the private sphere of those who do not wish it to be known who they support. As identified in this paper, support for certain organizations and their linked causes can not just lead to stigmatisation but to phyical harassement and far worse.
+Ethical considerations were at the root of this project.
+At their essence, donations are ethical acts outsourcing a moral drive for change to a third party that (promises to) act on them in a manner that is compatible with the value system of a donor.
+Current systems oblige people making donations to charities to go on record and report these donations to their government,
+explicitly linking them to the causes and institutions they supported.
+This has a self-censoring or chilling effect due to fear for future potential repercussions in complex and volatile political climates:
+information may linger on inside the bureaucratic system, and later cause unforeseeable harm.
+Such concerns about real-world ramifications on personal choices in the ethical domain cause stress to donors,
+and the current approach encroaches on the private sphere of those who do not wish for it to be known who they support.
+As identified in this paper, support for certain organizations and their linked causes
+can lead not only to stigmatisation but also to phyical harassement or far worse.
-The current mechanism also has discriminatory aspects. It places an unfair bureaucratic cost on spending an equivalent cumulative amount to philanthropy via supporting smaller causes - denying intersectional interests donors may have, and disadvantaging smaller, early stage and more lean public causes. The latter notably includes "niche" causes linked to (combinations of) cultural, sexual, ethnic, religious and social minorities. Smaller causes often do not have the capacity to offer support for achieving fiscal compensation to their donors, reprieving their (latent) donor constituencies of the amplifying effects of such compensation and making them less attractive (and thus relatively less likely) to be supported.
+The current mechanism also has discriminatory aspects.
+It places a higher bureaucratic cost on spreading an equivalent cumulative amount across smaller philanthropic causes -- denying intersectional interests donors may have, and disadvantaging smaller, early stage and more lean public causes. %XXX: "earlier stage"/"leaner"?
+The latter notably includes ``niche'' causes linked to (combinations of) cultural, sexual, ethnic, religious and social minorities.
+Smaller causes often do not have the capacity to offer support for achieving fiscal compensation to their donors, reprieving their (latent) donor constituencies of the amplifying effects of such compensation and making them less attractive (and thus relatively less likely) to be supported. %XXX: This sentence does not make sense to me. "Reprieve" is not used correctly (I think), and it's too lacking in detail to understand whether it's referring to e.g., membership benefits, or something else. Maybe remove it or explain what "support for achieving fiscal compensation for their donors" means.
-The aim of this project is to simplify donating for all and offer non-discrimatory access to tax benefits and greater protection of privacy, leading to greater tax justice and a philanthropic climate. We want to reverse the situation where people prefer not to claim the tax reduction to which they are entitled in order to protect themselves.
+The aim of this project is to simplify donating for all and offer non-discrimatory access to tax benefits and greater protection of privacy, leading to greater tax justice and a philanthropic climate.
+We want to reverse the situation where people prefer not to claim the tax benefit to which they are entitled in order to protect themselves.
-The associated software does not place any ethical dillema's upon the users. It is delivered as free and open source software, available under GNU V3.0 license in the repository git.taler.net/donau.git . Anyone is able to download, compile, install, modify and redistribute the software as they wish conditional to respecting this license.
+The associated software does not place any ethical dillema's upon the users.
+It is delivered as free and open source software, available under GNU V3.0 license in the repository \url{git.taler.net/donau.git}.
+Anyone is able to download, compile, install, modify and redistribute the software as they wish, conditional to respecting this license.
