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

Re: The role of trust in certification

At 10:40 AM 3/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 03:30 PM 2/12/98 -0800, Tony Bartoletti wrote:
>>This debate regarding "I use because I trust" vs "I trust because I used" is
>>interesting, but any hopes of resolution can only occur in a theoretical
>I wish people would stop using the naked word "trust".
>US currency says "In God we trust".
>I can't think of any human I trust without qualification.  For people, I 
>might say the words "I trust her", but I always finish those words with the 
>thought "to ________" or "to be __________".
>This idea that we can establish trust or communicate it is a sample of
>sloppy speaking, AFAIAC.  That's why we didn't call a <tag> "(trust ...)".
> - Carl

In the context it was written, I belive there was no particular
implication that "absolute" or "unconditional" trust was meant.

The observation was made in response to one of Ed Gerck's statements,
to the effect that a thing cannot be used until trusted.  My response
intended to convey the chicken-and-egg nature of trust in the human
experience, how we come to trust one another (to do X, be Y, whatever.)
This is in contrast to purely theoretic or axiomatic treatments,
(at least the simpler ones) where unquestioned trust in some root
premises is assumed, and used to "prove" the trustworthiness of
subsequent "well-formed" contructs.  This approach also has value.


Tony Bartoletti                                             LL
SPI-NET GURU                                             LL LL
Computer Security Technology Center                   LL LL LL
Lawrence Livermore National Lab                       LL LL LL
PO Box 808, L - 303                                   LL LL LLLLLLLL
Livermore, CA 94551-9900                              LL LLLLLLLL
email: azb@llnl.gov   phone: 510-422-3881             LLLLLLLL

Follow-Ups: References: