From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 08:59:48 MDT
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:10:46AM -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 05:05 am, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> >In the end, I think the big issue is whether trust is on the increase or
> >decrease. It is a cultural issue, and not just about what pays and
> >doesn't pay, but what symbols and values are promoted by ourselves. When
> >integrity becomes highly valued, then trust will also increase.
>
> In rigorous security analysis, it turns out that trust is a bad thing.
> Trust only occurs when someone is unable to verify something or to
> control something. Then you are in a position to have to "trust"
> someone or something to not be deceptive. Stronger security occurs when
> trust is unnecessary and the integrity of a claim is demonstrated in
> some way. If all parties can separately verify the integrity of
> information, they can assure themselves of its worthiness without having
> to trust anyone. For example, counting your change is a better check of
> a transaction than reputation and trust of the cashier.
Interesting point. Trust as it is usually seen is the assumption that
the probability of being deceived is low, but also among humans that
other humans do not have malign goals. So having a society where
contracts and maybe smart property enables people to prove their
truthfulness in their interactions (trust in your sense and the first
sense above) might still be a low-trust society in the second sense of
people viewing each other as potential enemies.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:29 MST