[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: acceptance&commitments over trust
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Carl Ellison wrote:
> Tony Bartoletti wrote:
>>Of course we'll get by without a deeper decision-making foundation, for
>>a while at least. But as we delegate more and more decisions to software
>>automatons, we may have to codify these reliance measures with a more
>>comprehensive methodology. Will Ed's stuff do this for us? I don't know.
>>I can barely understand it. But I can't get myself to ignore it, and I
>>won't ignore it simply because it makes my head hurt.
>Ed's stuff is fascinating, but it strikes me as an intellectual exercise
>inspired by a false premise: that unqualified "trust" is something we can
I agree entirely with you.
That's why I say "A trusts B on matters of x" --- which occurs
at time T, of course.
So, trust is perfectly qualified:
the trustor: A
the trustee: B
the subject: x
the time: T
The rest just follows ....
> My claim is that the word "trust" was used in crypto research
>papers the way a mathematician uses any variable in an expression. It's
>intended for the user to fill in -- while the researcher didn't need to know
>what it means in order to show how sloppy crypto or protocols can violate it
> -- which was the point of such papers. My suspicion is that a bunch of
>people assume the naked word "trust" must mean something, so they're busy
>trying to define it carefully -- rather than use it as the unbound variable
>it was meant to be.
My claim is diverse. The word trust has been used in crypto research
to mean even opposite things, such as using "trust" in lieu of
"authorization" .. which just confuses cause (trust) with effect
But, as shown above, I affirm that you are in error when you speak
about my use of the naked word trust ;-)
naked is the Emperor....
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck firstname.lastname@example.org
--- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---