Once the
interaction framework is in place, we are in a position to establish the
participants in the interaction. We typically accomplish this through a series
of authentication protocols. We convince ourselves that the person we’re
talking to is a sales clerk, because she is behind the counter in the store
where she has access to the cash register, and she’s wearing a name tag with
her name and the store’s logo on it. Bear in mind that this is an informal
protocol, and we’ve all engaged it only to have it fail. For example, most of
us have inadvertently asked assistance of someone in a crowded store only to
find that they are not actually a store employee; they just happen to have “that
look” about them. The authentication operation is often multi-directional. A
typical response when we approach the sales clerk at the checkout counter is
for her to ask, “My I have your credit card and see a photo ID please?”
As we complete
the authentication of identities, we’re ready to negotiate the rules of the
interaction. “I believe that these items are on sale and there will be an
additional 25% deducted from the marked price; is that correct?” And, the
negotiation is multi-directional as well; “Well these three items are on sale,
but this one is not so, it is priced as marked.” And, the negotiation may be
iterative as well: “Oh, I must have picked it up from the wrong table. Let me
exchange it for one from the For Sale table.” At some point, the rules of
engagement, that is the applicable policy has been established, and an actual
exchange transaction can now take place; consideration offered for
consideration gained.
The exchange
transaction in this case might entail clipping the price tag off of the items,
scanning them into the cash register, adding the applicable sales tax and
arriving at the total sales amount. The credit card is then engaged, a valid
charge is made and a receipt is presented for signature by the buyer. The
signed receipt forms a transaction log with some characteristics of
non-repudiation: the signature ostensibly affirms that the buyer did actually
participate in this transaction. At this point, this transaction is completed
and the end-game of the interaction is entered. “Is that all, or can I help you
with something else today?” “No, that’s all. Thanks for your help.” The
interaction framework is then terminated when the buyer walks away from the
sales counter. If you’re next in line, this is the point where the sales clerk
might put up an “Out to Lunch” sign on the counter. But, that’s an interaction
of a different color.
Perhaps
whimsically stated, but this model derived from personal interaction experience
has been implemented in many Web-based store operations. In this case, each of
the steps that we’ve noted in the purely human interaction environment is
mimicked to the extent possible in the interaction facility of a Web browser
connected across the Internet to a Web server. However, we recognize that there
are significant differences in the conduct of a transaction through personal
contact at the sales counter of a retail store versus an attempt to conduct the
same transaction through a Web browser talking to a Web server across the
Internet. In particular, because the Web environment does not naturally provide
the social ecosystem mechanisms that we take for granted in purely human
interaction environments the levels of trust that can be naturally established
in transaction processes is greatly diminished.
The
authentication of identities that occurred between purchaser and sales agent as
virtually a reflexive action in a retail store requires significantly more
attention in the Web environment. Even then, the trust implicit in the
environment is diminished. Finding a salesperson physically located in a place
behind the counter and identified through a credential allows one to imbue a
level of trust in the environment that does not naturally occur when we access
a Web server from our Web browser. Unless additional mechanisms are brought
into play, we have no reason to believe the asserted identity of the Web server
and we certainly have no way of knowing its exact physical location.
Conversely, the Web server has no reason to believe the subsequently asserted
|