Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
So the bottom line is that we lack trust.
Depends how you define trust. In my view, the bottom line is that
trust depends on corroboration with multiple channels while today
we have neither (a) the multiple channels nor (b) the corroboration
mechanisms. So, we lack trust because we can't communicate it.
It's an even more basic limitation than just lacking it ;-)
How would introducing trust help with the spam problem?
By allowing trust to be earned between humans and machines, and to
each other. Machines can then become our agents also in terms of trust
Would the cost
of doing so perhaps would be so prohibitive that we will not be able to
Anything else will be more expensive because there is no other solution.
Trust is that which provides meaning to information (Shannon: information
is that which you do not expect, information is surprise). Without
trust, all we have is a string of bits. Let me give you some examples.
1. If I ask you whether the expression in quotes "1=1" is true or
false, what would you say? Looks simple enough, no?
HINT: Your answer depends on the meaning you assign to the expression
"1=1", which depends on what you rely upon (i.e., what you trust) when you
evaluate it. The same process is reflected in software when that
expression is evaluated to true or false. For example, the above
expression is incorrect in C.
2. if I tell you I'll send you a GIFT, can you tell me what you think
(a) a present
(b) a poison
HINT: To answer this question, you also need to assign a meaning to the
word GIFT, which depends on what you rely upon (i.e., trust) in regard
to me (since I formulated the question). Again, the same process is
reflected in software when a tag is evaluated in a protocol. In English,
(a) is correct. In German, (b) is correct.
Is it really possible to introduce trust that will actually work?
It works every day. Otherwise we would not be able to cook, earn
money or even talk. We just have to transpose this knowledge from
our wetware to the software.