Can Formalism Alone Provide an Answer to the Quest of a Viable Definition of Trust in the WWW Society?

Ever since the creation of the first human society, people have understood that the only way of sustaining and improving their societies is to rely on each other for exchanging services. This reliance have traditionally built on developing, among them, trust, a vague, intuitive to a large extend and hard to define concept that brought together people who worked towards the progress we all witness around us today. Today’s society is, however, becoming increasingly massive, collective, and complex and includes not only people, but huge numbers of machines as well. Thus, trust, being already a difficult concept to define and measure when applied to a few people that form a cooperating group or a set of acquaintances, it is far more difficult to pinpoint when applied to large communities whose members may hardly know each other in person or to interconnected machines employed by these communities. In this paper we attempt to take a pragmatic position with regard to trust definition and measurement. We employ several formalisms, into each of which we define a reasonable notion of trust, and show that inherent weaknesses of these formalisms result in an inability to have a concrete and fully measurable trust concept. We then argue that trust in the modern intertwined WWW society must, necessarily, incorporate to some degree non-formalizable elements, such as common sense and intuition.

[1]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Decentralized trust management , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

[2]  Jean-Marie Le Bars Fragments of Existential Second-Order Logic without 0-1 Laws , 1998, LICS.

[3]  J. Heijenoort From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931 , 1967 .

[4]  Mogens Nielsen,et al.  Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2000 , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[5]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  The Eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks , 2003, WWW '03.

[6]  Stasys Jukna,et al.  Extremal Combinatorics - With Applications in Computer Science , 2001, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series.

[7]  Theodosis Dimitrakos,et al.  System Models, e-Risks and e-Trust - Towards bridging the gap? , 2001, I3E.

[8]  Robin Milner,et al.  On Observing Nondeterminism and Concurrency , 1980, ICALP.

[9]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Probabilities on finite models , 1976, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[10]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs , 1985 .

[11]  Peter Dolan Undecidable statements and random graphs , 2005, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[12]  John S. Baras,et al.  On Trust Establishment in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks , 2002, Security Protocols Workshop.

[13]  Morris Sloman,et al.  A survey of trust in internet applications , 2000, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[14]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  The decision problem for the probabilities of higher-order properties , 1987, STOC.

[15]  Peter C. Cheeseman,et al.  Where the Really Hard Problems Are , 1991, IJCAI.

[16]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  0-1 Laws for Fragments of Existential Second-Order Logic: A Survey , 2000, MFCS.

[17]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  The Existence and Efficient Construction of Large Independent Sets in General Random Intersection Graphs , 2004, ICALP.

[18]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs: Notation , 2001 .

[19]  John S. Baras,et al.  Trust evaluation in ad-hoc networks , 2004, WiSe '04.

[20]  J. Spencer The Strange Logic of Random Graphs , 2001 .

[21]  Ramanathan V. Guha,et al.  Propagation of trust and distrust , 2004, WWW '04.

[22]  Audun Jøsang,et al.  The right type of trust for distributed systems , 1996, NSPW '96.

[23]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Trust Management for the Semantic Web , 2003, SEMWEB.

[24]  Jean-Pierre Hubaux,et al.  The quest for security in mobile ad hoc networks , 2001, MobiHoc '01.

[25]  Rolf Herken,et al.  The Universal Turing Machine: A Half-Century Survey , 1992 .