At the
sensori-motor level, trust in computer operations is, just as for humans,
linked with the certainty of causality effects. If something happens somewhere
in my computer or in the network, how certain am I that expected consequences
will follow? As it happens, there are three mitigating factors to answering
this question: quality, security
and statistics. The first, quality
measures the relationship between the original intent put forth in the
implementation of the computer system versus the actual results obtained. The
second, security measures the extent to which that implementation may have been
compromised, thereby altering the causality chain. The third is related to the
use of statistical evaluation in the determination of computers’ actions, for
example in the domains of network responses and of cryptographic measures. Before
we look specifically at actual computers, let us consider the way modern
systems in general are evaluated regarding quality and security.
Social
ecosystems encompass the characteristic of subjective evaluation, which by its
very nature allows interim assessments of evolutionary changes to be incorrect
relative to the ultimate judgment of natural selection. We refer to these as
interim in that, in the final analysis, the objective rule of natural selection
will prevail. That said, it is useful to consider one such subjective mechanism
that has emerged as a significant factor in the provision of access to content,
that of standards.
The provision of
standards is an approach through which mutational changes are removed, or at
least severely constrained within a social ecosystem. Standards primarily
address an interface or a process within a specific ecosystem element and they
are typically established in one of two distinct forms; through a standards
document agreed to by a standards organization or through a
specification, possibly accompanied by a conformance test, issued by an
organization which seeks to impact the manner of implementation of a system;
most typically, a consortium of some type. While there are many
standards associated with quality and security, we will chose two to briefly
review in order to illustrate their role in establishing trust based on the
rituals they are associated with; rituals known as certification.
The most
prevalent quality standard is the family of ISO
9000, developed by the International Standard Organization. The approach
followed by ISO 9000 is to provide means to evaluate the maturity of
organizations in following set processes in their implementation of product and
services. For example, in building a computer a series of steps must be
followed: purchasing parts, assembling them, testing them, packaging the
product, advertising, selling and distributing the computer to the customer.
Trust is needed in all elements of this chain. If non-functioning parts are
purchased, badly assembled, insufficiently tested, weakly packaged, fraudulently
advertised, sold on promises and distributed to the wrong place, the resulting
computer will not be expected to satisfy expectations. Even if only one of the
steps is compromised the result is problematic. ISO 9000 requires that all
processes involved in the manufacturing of the product are documented,
monitored, analyzed and continuously improved. Properly done, certification
will allow associating a level of trust in the computer produced following such
processes.
Similarly, a fundamental
security standard is Common Criteria;
also a standard stamped by the International Standard Organization. The idea of
Common Criteria is easily illustrated in reference to a familiar security
situation; for example, that of one’s home. When thinking of one’s home
protection, it is immediately apparent that security levels are relative. We
will not all live in a Fort
Knox kind of house. Depending on our
environment and needs, we will seek specific levels of protection. For example,
in our neighborhood we may consider that making sure that our doors and windows
are closed when we are absent will provide us with an acceptable level of
security. Alternatively, our neighborhood environment may be such that we need
to install an electronic
|