gnunet-svn
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[donau] branch master updated: Update requirements


From: gnunet
Subject: [donau] branch master updated: Update requirements
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:56:22 +0100

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

michiel-leenars pushed a commit to branch master
in repository donau.

The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
     new 0cc919b  Update requirements
0cc919b is described below

commit 0cc919b72d2419e90f321f16204a85542bb9b137
Author: Michiel Leenaars <michiel.ml@nlnet.nl>
AuthorDate: Sun Jan 19 21:56:14 2025 +0100

    Update requirements
---
 doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/bibliography.bib |  8 +++++++
 doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/requirements.tex | 28 ++++++++++++-------------
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/bibliography.bib 
b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/bibliography.bib
index cdcb8df..18f5d1c 100644
--- a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/bibliography.bib
+++ b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/bibliography.bib
@@ -70,6 +70,14 @@
       howpublished = {\url{https://taler.net/papers/cs-thesis.pdf}}
 }
 
+@misc{ALEC2016,
+      author = {American Legislative Exchange Council},
+      title = {Resolution in Support of Nonprofit Donor Privacy},
+      year = {2017},
+      addendum = {accessed: 17.01.2025},
+      howpublished = 
{\url{https://alec.org/model-policy/resolution-in-support-of-nonprofit-donor-privacy/}}
+}
+
 @inproceedings{BernsteinEd25519,
       author       = {Daniel J. Bernstein and
                       Niels Duif and
diff --git a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/requirements.tex 
b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/requirements.tex
index d9341aa..993f474 100644
--- a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/requirements.tex
+++ b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/requirements.tex
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ The basic assumptions when defining requirements for a 
donation flow are as foll
 The central design goals for the Donau protocol are the following:
 
 \begin{itemize}
-\item Accommodate a donor's wish to remain fully anonymous, also
+\item Accommodate a donor's wish to remain fully incognito, also
   towards the organization(s) donated to.
 \item The donor should be able to claim the tax benefits they are
   entitled to without having to disclose any of the organization(s)
@@ -129,7 +129,6 @@ some form.
 \item Codes of conduct
 \item Restricted access mechanism
 \item Donation matching with a reference
-\item Proof of donation matching by third parties
 \item Anonymous donation matching by employer
 \end{itemize}
 
@@ -334,7 +333,7 @@ use photos of their day to day work or other personal 
tokens.
 
 For transferring physical objects, the donor would need to be
 identifiable as such. At the same time, it should be possible for a
-donor to decline receiving such gifts and retain their anonymity, to
+donor to decline receiving such gifts and retain at least anonymity, to
 the extent that this does not conflict with other regulations.
 
 \subsubsection{Feature: Donation matching with a reference}
@@ -360,18 +359,17 @@ to include that reference when making their donations, 
the donor
 providing the matching can `see' that they are being heard/are getting
 PR mileage out of their donation.
 
-\subsubsection{Feature: Proof of donation matching by third parties}
+Conversely, while one would like to be able to trust each and every claim on a
+website or social media account towards matching of donations, donation
+matching is a form of social engineering that is potentially easy and
+attractive to tamper with. A critical donor may prefer to have actual proof of
+such altruistic matching irrevocably taking place, in order to weed out any
+attempt to trick them into a false sense of urgency - believing their donation
+will temporarily have a disproportionately larger effect. As such, it would be
+interesting to be able to verify whether the matching donation actually took
+place.
 
-While one would like to be able to trust each and every claim on the website or
-social media account of every charitable organisation towards matching of
-donations, donation matching is a form of social engineering that is
-potentially easy and attractive to tamper with. A critical donor may prefer to
-have actual proof of such altruistic matching irrevocably taking place, in
-order to weed out any attempt to trick them into a false sense of urgency -
-believing their donation will temporarily have a disproportionately larger
-effect.
-
-\subsubsection{Feature: Anonymous donation matching by employer }
+\subsubsection{Feature: Incognito donation matching by employer }
 
 Quite a few large employers do donation matching as part of their
 corporate responsibility or human resource management (HRM)
@@ -386,7 +384,7 @@ In many cases, this practice is rather privacy-invasive. If 
you donate
 to, e.g., a reproductive rights organization, an NGO promoting climate
 justice, or a digital rights organization, an employer might want to
 find out from whom that donation originated. This makes it attractive
-for the donor to have a chance to stay anonymous while nevertheless
+for the donor to have a chance to stay incognito while nevertheless
 ensuring that their donation is matched as one done by an employee of
 the company.  This would require a mechanism where charities could
 prove to an employer that some eligible person (typically an employee

-- 
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
gnunet@gnunet.org.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]