[donau] 03/03: bringing the agencies to the front here, spell-checking with US English

[gnunet]

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

tanja-lange pushed a commit to branch master
in repository donau.

commit ce9b8116957005b836d50733f3b6bb23bfdbb68b
Author: Tanja Lange <tanja@hyperelliptic.org>
AuthorDate: Thu Jan 23 10:11:48 2025 +0100

    bringing the agencies to the front here, spell-checking with US English
---
 doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex 
b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex
index 4291866..fdc30ec 100644
--- a/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex
+++ b/doc/usenix-security-2025/paper/intro.tex
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ organizations but also how much they gave to which.
 
 Individual spending quickly becomes very intimate and personal, as even
 aggregate spending habits can reveal a great deal about people through
-behavioural analytics and
+behavioral analytics and
 psychographic profiling.~\cite{purchase2018wen,purchasepsyco2019gladstone}
 This holds even more for
 acts of donating, which is typically highly revealing about e.g. belief systems
@@ -99,10 +99,10 @@ 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
+One common scenario is that after a first donation, such agencies % 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,
+They also reuse donor information between charities,
 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
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ facilities for cultural philanthropies, offering more 
attractive rates of tax
 benefits than for regular philanthropies. Obviously, this needs to be taken
 into account when designing a system, but does not take away the fundamental
 premise that within those categories it is no concern of a government which
-particular recognised causes are supported.
+particular recognized causes are supported.
 
 In this work we solve the issue of privacy-preserving donations with
 tax deductions by adhering to ``privacy by design'': In cases where
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ signatures has previously been
 suggested~\cite{donations2003blind} as a foundation for donation systems that 
allow
 donors to remain anonymous but easily identify donation recipients.
 The untraceability of the underlying payment system for purchases easily 
provides untraceability in the donation context as well.
-The crucial difference is that the Donau sysem gives tax-deducatable donation
+The crucial difference is that the Donau system gives tax-deductible donation
 receipts without revealing the charity donated to.
 
 Our current implementation is designed to work in conjunction with the

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