| When we purchase things, a house, a refrigerator, a phone.. a meal in a restaurant.. We don't fully trust the auditors of these items. Some are licensed (house inspectors and appraisers are highly regulated after the prior real estate mess called the S&L crisis circa 1987-94 -- and health inspectors and their ratings for food purveyors vary by place) and some aren't (Consumer Reports just doesn't take money or even the product to perform reviews). It's up to each person to assess the risk of the effects of the purchase. Different entities make information about the effects of the purchase available, and because they are regulated or have stated certain public self-imposed boundaries, we can decide for ourselves what we each rely on and what we don't. In Seattle they are just imposing the posting of heath scores in restaurants for patrons to see before they walk in. There is a bit of (nervous) trust in relying on something(or one)-else for the review, the audit, etc, but what the reviewers and auditors care about may not be what you care about. So depending on how important and the expense, people still assess the situation and ultimately the choice is theirs. There isn't much trust but the control is in the individual's access to know transparently how reviewers and auditors work, and make the assessment yourself. The reviewers and auditors are *assuring* a level or standard of care. It is possible to do this with policy reviews, or the effects of sharing personal data, to give people assurance. But the word trust, as used now, will probably backfire, if used widely. This is because "Trust Frameworks" and "Trust Marks" can't be trusted. They are "assurances" only. (Re: Trust Marks -- this not the IP kind.. which adds an additional layer of confusion for people familiar with those as the IP kind has already a legal definition: you can trust this "mark" is only used by the owner of the mark and not someone else, trying to confuse you as a customer -- that's all you are asked to "trust" when you see a TM next to a logo, slogan or color scheme/design). Using Trust Mark in this context: as a signal of the use of a brand or logo or what is currently called a "trust framework" could work, if the "trust framework" was changed to be an "assurance framework." So for regular people, when they see Trust Framework or Trust Mark, they may think they can trust it more. But rather they cannot trust it any more than anything else. And when they find it untrustworthy on any level, they will likely get angry and just like with TrustE (whom no one trusts because they are .. not trustworthy[1][2][3] ) TF and TMs will be nastily made fun of for implying they could be trusted when they can't. [1] Boutin, Paul (April 9, 2002). "Just how Trusty is Truste.Wired. http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/04/51624?currentPage=all [2] Edelman, Benjamin (September 25, 2006). "Certifications and Site Trustworthiness"http://www.benedelman.org/news/092506-1.html [3] Edelman, Benjamin (March 18, 2008). "Coupons.com and TRUSTe: Lots of Talk, Too Little Action" http://www.benedelman.org/news/031808-1.html Rather, all these things, TFs and TMs and Truste, just like Consumer Reports, can only give assurance to a standard, leaving individuals to be the judge of what they will rely on, or control. In the end, all we have is the ability to manage risk. Control is another way of saying: you want to control for risk, and being assured something has met a standard helps. But it doesn't mitigate the risk. Only you, and insurance companies can do that, and likely the risk mitigation will be limited, and payback, if there ever is any, won't make someone or the company who loses, whole. On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:16 AM, luk vervenne wrote:
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.