commit 4e7e07c9590c5248eed42bba98a895658a940456
parent 3fc550c672104cb1af1dfb979cc5a5c6380ec2bf
Author: Jonathan <ondesmartenot@riseup.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:47:33 +0800
1.1: significant rewriting and explicitly mentioning privacy protections from the charity itself
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex
@@ -89,19 +89,21 @@ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
\subsection{Protection towards all sides}
-Privacy threats not only exist on the outside. Not many people are
-aware that while the causes they support may be worthwhile, not all
-philanthropies play as nice as one would expect them to towards
-donors. This happens in particular when such organizations employ
-third party (often commercial) agencies to help ``yield'' more
-donations on a commission basis or as ``fund raisers''. Especially
-for-profit fund raising agencies tend to resort to questionable social
-engineering approaches. One common scenario is that after a first
-donation, such bad actors start to aggressively pressure a particular
-donor for more -- with personalized emails, letters, phone calls and
-even in person visits. This may happen beyond a single good cause:
-people that donate are known to be susceptible to a certain
-proposition, resulting in an avalanche of follow up demands.
+Privacy protection against outside parties is not the only concern.
+Threats to privacy may come from the receiving charity as well.
+Even when a donor considers a
+particular philanthropic cause to be worthwhile, the charity may use
+information about the donor's past giving to aggressively solicit them for more
+contributions afterward.
+This happens in particular when such organizations
+employ third party (often for-profit) agencies to help ``yield'' more donations
+on a commission basis. For-profit fund
+raising agencies often engage in privacy-invasive practices to identify and contact potential donors.
+One common scenario is that after a first donation, such bad actors % calling them "bad actors" might be unnecessarily opinionated. From a privacy perspective they are not good, but many organizations also rely on these services to not go bankrupt. -JL
+start to aggressively pressure a particular donor for more --- with personalized
+emails, letters, phone calls and even in person visits.
+Donor information may also be shared between organizations,
+leading to an avalanche of donation requests from organizations that the donor might not be interested in supporting.
In the era of data driven donations and corporate social media
surveillance, this kind of behavior has unfortunately become so easy
@@ -111,6 +113,10 @@ Netherlands:
Donateursbelangen}) to de-register and exercise the ``right to be
forgotten'' after donating.
+These concerns suggest that a privacy-preserving donation system
+should also allow donors to remain anonymous with respect to the charity itself,
+if that is their wish.
+
% Commenting out, too much repetition for my taste. -CG
%Even without such excesses, there are many circumstances when people
%like to donate something to their preferred causes without revealing
