Typographic fixes around double quotes.

3 files changed, 23 insertions, 23 deletions

diff --git a/wiki/ethics/lg-smart-tv.md b/wiki/ethics/lg-smart-tv.md
index 51fdbc9..f544f02 100644
--- a/wiki/ethics/lg-smart-tv.md
+++ b/wiki/ethics/lg-smart-tv.md
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 [According to a UK
 blogger](http://doctorbeet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/lg-smart-tvs-logging-usb-fil
-enames-and.html), LG Smart TVs not only offer "smart" features, but also
+enames-and.html), LG Smart TVs not only offer “smart” features, but also
 track your viewing habits _extremely_ closely by submitting events back to LG
 and to LG's advertising affiliates.
 
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The page comments additionally suggest that the TV sends back information
 whenever the menu is opened, as well.
 
 This information is used to provide targeted advertising, likely to offset
-the operational cost of the TV's "intelligent" features. Consumer protections
+the operational cost of the TV's “intelligent” features. Consumer protections
 around personal data and tracking have traditionally been very weak, so it's
 not entirely surprising that LG would choose to extract revenue this way
 instead of raising the price of the product to cover the operational costs and instead of offering the intelligent features as a subscription service, but this is extremely disappointing.
@@ -60,10 +60,10 @@ habit-revealing data available for free, too.
 
 ## Icing on the cake
 
-The TV's settings menu contains an item entitled "Collection of watching
-info" which can be turned to "On" (the default, even if the customer rejects
+The TV's settings menu contains an item entitled “Collection of watching
+info” which can be turned to “On” (the default, even if the customer rejects
 the end-user license agreement on the television and disables the
-"intelligent" features) or "Off". It would be reasonable to expect that this
+“intelligent” features) or “Off.” It would be reasonable to expect that this
 option would stop the TV from communicating viewing habits to the internet;
 however, the setting appears to do very little. The article shows packet
 captures of the TV submitting viewing information to LG with the setting in
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ _actually_ does or to clarify expectations around it.
 
 ## LG's stance is morally indefensible
 
-From the blog post, LG's representative claims that viewers "agree" to this
+From the blog post, LG's representative claims that viewers “agree” to this
 monitoring when they accept the TV's end-user license agreement, and that
 it's up to the retailer to inform the user of the contents of the license
 agreement. However:
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ agreement. However:
 It is not reasonable to expect customers to assume their TV will track
 viewing habits publicly. This is not a behaviour that TVs have had over their
 multi-decade existence, and it's disingenuous for LG to act like the customer
-"should have known" in any sense that the LG TV acts in this way.
+“should have known” in any sense that the LG TV acts in this way.
 
 LG is hiding behind the modern culture of unfair post-sale contracts to
 impose a novel, deeply-invasive program of customer monitoring for their own
diff --git a/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md b/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md
index 1564959..20b8c5c 100644
--- a/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md
+++ b/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 provided by LinkedIn that inserts LinkedIn relationship data into the user's
 incoming and outgoing mail. This allows, for example, LinkedIn to decorate
 incoming mail with a toolbar linking to the sender's LinkedIn account, and
-automatically injects a short "signature" of your LinkedIn profile into
+automatically injects a short “signature” of your LinkedIn profile into
 outgoing mail.
 
 These are useful features, and the resulting interaction is quite smooth.
@@ -21,8 +21,8 @@ LinkedIn Intro's proxy mail server must be able to log into the user's real
 incoming mail server to retrieve mail, and often must log into the user's real
 outgoing mail server to deliver mail with correct SPF or DKIM validation. This
 implies that LinkedIn Intro must know the user's email credentials, which it
-acquires from their mobile device. Since this is a "use" of a password, not
-merely a "validation" of an incoming password, the password must be available
+acquires from their mobile device. Since this is a “use” of a password, not
+merely a “validation” of an incoming password, the password must be available
 _to LinkedIn_ as plain text. There are two serious problems with this that
 are directly LinkedIn's responsibilty, and a third that's indirect but
 important. (Some email providers - notably Google - support non-password,
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ of either the sender's or the recipients' control. LinkedIn is in a position
 to claim that Intro users have given it _permission_ to be intrusive into
 their email in this way.
 
-Very few people use a dedicated email account for "corporate networking" and
+Very few people use a dedicated email account for “corporate networking” and
 recruiting activities. A CEO (LinkedIn's own example) recieves mail pertaining
 to many sensitive aspects of a corporation's running: lawsuit notices, gossip
 among the exec team, planning emails discussing the future of the company,
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Users in heavily-regulated industries, such as health care or finance, may be
 exposing their whole organization to government interventions by using Intro,
 as LinkedIn is not known to be HIPAA, SOX, or PCI compliant.
 
-The resulting "who mailed what to whom" database is hugely valuable. I expect
+The resulting “who mailed what to whom” database is hugely valuable. I expect
 LinkedIn to be banking on this; such a corpus of conversational data would
 greatly help them develop new features targetting specific groups of users,
 and could improve the overall effectiveness of their recommendation engine.
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ All of the risks outlined above are manageable. With proper information, the
 end user can make an informed decision as to whether
 
 * to ignore Intro at all, or
-* to use Intro with a dedicated "LinkedIn Only" email account, or
+* to use Intro with a dedicated “LinkedIn Only” email account, or
 * to use Intro with everything
 
 LinkedIn's own marketing materials outline _absolutely none_ of these risks.
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ its users' security needs. In particular:
 A breach in LinkedIn proper may not imply a breach in LinkedIn Intro, and vice
 versa, but there must be at least some data passing back and forth for Intro
 to operate. The nature and structure of the security mechanisms that permit
-the "right" kind of data are not elaborated on; it's impossible to decide how
+the “right” kind of data are not elaborated on; it's impossible to decide how
 well they actually insulate Intro from LinkedIn. Furthermore, a breach in
 LinkedIn Intro is still incredibly damaging even if it doesn't span LinkedIn
 itself.
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ both government and private. If either of those conditions does not hold, it's
 worse.
 
 The software industry is young, and immature, and wealthy. There is no ethics
-body to complain to; had the developers of Intro said "no", they would very
+body to complain to; had the developers of Intro said “no,” they would very
 likely have been replaced by another round of developers who would help
 LinkedIn violate their users' privacy. That does not excuse LinkedIn; their
 product is vile, and must not be tolerated in the market.
diff --git a/wiki/ethics/musings.md b/wiki/ethics/musings.md
index e41276b..b9a899b 100644
--- a/wiki/ethics/musings.md
+++ b/wiki/ethics/musings.md
@@ -50,27 +50,27 @@ for society.
 ## Integrity is not about contracts or legislation
 
 Ethics, personal integrity, and group integrity are tangled together, but
-modern Western conceptions of group integrity tend to revolve around "does
-this group break the law or engender lawsuits," not "does this group act in
-the best interests of people outside of it."
+modern Western conceptions of group integrity tend to revolve around “does
+this group break the law or engender lawsuits,” not “does this group act in
+the best interests of people outside of it.”
 
 ## Assumptions
 
-I've embedded some of my personal morality into the "ethics" articles in this
+I've embedded some of my personal morality into the “ethics” articles in this
 section, in the absence of a published moral code. Those, obviously, aren't
 absolute, but you can reason about their validity if you assume that I
-believe the "end user's" privacy and active consent take priority over the
+believe the “end user's” privacy and active consent take priority over the
 technical cleverness or business value of a software system.
 
 ### Consent and social software
 
-This has some complicated downstream effects: "active consent" means
+This has some complicated downstream effects: “active consent” means
 something you can't handwave away by putting implied consent (for example, to
 future changes) in an EULA or privacy statement. I haven't written much that
 calls out this pattern because it's _pervasive_.
 
-The "end user is the real product" business model most social networks
+The “end user is the real product” business model most social networks
 operate on is fundamentally unethical under this code. It will always be more
-valuable to the "real customers" (advertisers, analytics platforms, law
+valuable to the “real customers” (advertisers, analytics platforms, law
 enforcement, and intelligence agencies) for users to be opted into new
 measurements by default, _assuming_ consent rather than obtaining it.