Trust

When we think of trust and what it means, we quickly realize it encompasses many things. In the natural world, we use the word “trust” to:

• Interpret what people say
• Describe behaviors
• Decide if we feel comfortable sharing data
• Indicate whether we feel other people have our interests at heart

In a given situation, all of us can quickly measure our trust in someone using our experience and basic senses.  But in the digital world our senses cannot play the same role. We are removed from the situation and the other person by electrons, time, and distance.  And it’s becoming more complex.  What’s on the other end of the internet isn’t a person; it’s a server, a smart device, or digital endpoint which represents the person within the context of the situation.

The Trusted Advisor describes a trust equation to quantify the level of trust that exists in any natural world relationship.  Simply stated, the level of trust between you (the one who wants to be to be relied on to do or provide what is needed or right) and the other person (the one who wants to believe in your reliability, truth, ability, or strength) is defined by the sum of credibility, reliability, and intimacy divided by your self-orientation.

T = (C + R + I) / S

Let’s refine each variable in the Trust Equation to gain a better understanding of what they mean in the natural world.

• Credibility (Words) – Subject-matter expertise and appearances (how you look, act, react, etc.) This is the most common trust factor. Most people get this one right.
• Reliability (Actions) – Whether you are thought of as dependable and predictable.
• Intimacy (Emotions) – The extent to which someone can expect truth, discretion, and transparency in their dealings with you.
• Self-orientation (Motives) – Anything that the other person presents that is asymmetric in value (they win, you lose). Being self-centered is another example.

How do we measure trust in the digital world? Through capturing and quantifying a similar four attributes.

• Credibility – does the issuing endpoint present the right credentials (identifiers and attributes) to establish identity and qualifications that are acceptable to the inspector (AKA relying party) for the exchange? Can those credentials be verified with reputable sources for more assurance?
• Reliability – does the issuing endpoint have the required data, is its integrity secured from tampering, and is it available when data exchange is needed?
• Reputation – does the issuing endpoint present quality data from the point of view of inspectors of those data?
• Intent – is there an acceptable codified agreement between the issuer and inspector governing the exchange?  Do the endpoints have a history of honoring agreements?

Here at IDI we are developing solutions that provide the quantified level of trust required for anyone on the Internet to make a decision or complete a unit of work based on the information they receive.