[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Trust and risk
Oh come on, Frank, this is going to be too easy. See responses inline. On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > This is looking quite good. > However, I think that there are a couple of unnecessary couplings: > > I do not think that trust is necessarily tied to actions. (I have > the same issue with people who believe that obligations are actions). Agreed. The important thing is I trust the real world effects will result and I assume there are actions, many private, that will take place to realize those real world effects. It was easier to write in terms of action although I was having the same concern over what could appear as too tight a linkage. Do we need to say something along the lines I said during the last call: I can trust a friend will have every intention of paying back a loan but I do not expect to see that real world effect. So my final trust of having the loan amount back in my possession is rather low, but I still may make the loan. > > > Also, I think it is not necessary to presuppose that the trusting > party cannot perform the tasks in question. It is enough that he > 'wishes' the other party to perform the task. > Point conceded. > frank > On Mar 19, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: > >> Dave Ellis and I batted around some ideas this afternoon and I >> believe we have a pretty clear picture. I've expanded somewhat as >> I've tried to capture our discussion. Read on and see what you >> think. >> >> <trust_risk> >> >> Trust >> ------- >> Trust is a personal perception or conclusion that some entity will >> perform actions that will lead to an identifiable set of real world >> effects. Trust can be defined in two contexts: trust as part of >> interaction and trust of actions in which the trusting party has no >> active part. >> >> For trust in the context of interaction, the trusting party is >> prepared to perform actions as part of an interaction with some >> party, and that other party's actions can be considered a >> response. The trusting party expects the response will to lead to >> real world effects that are desired but which the trusting party >> cannot accomplish by itself. For example, I submit an order for a >> book with an online bookstore and supply my credit card information >> as payment. This implies I trust the bookstore to send me the >> correct book and not misuse my credit card. >> >> For trust without direct interaction, the trusting party is an >> observer. The trusting party again expects some other entity to >> perform actions leading to certain real world effects but those >> actions are perceived to be independent of actions on the part of >> the trusting party. The expected real world effects may be >> considered desirable, undesirable, or neutral by the trusting >> party. For example, I may trust a browser indicating an SSL >> connection is sufficiently secure that I would be willing to >> provide credit card information for transmittal to another party. >> >> Trust is based on evidence available to the trusting party. >> Therefore, trust is not binary, i.e. a party is not completely >> trusted or untrusted, because there is typically some degree of >> uncertainty in the accuracy or completeness of the evidence. The >> evidence may be physical artifacts or a set of information from >> which the trusting party can assess the degree of trust. >> >> The degree of trust exists as a property of the trusting party with >> respect to another party or class of parties. For example, I may >> trust all police officers. If the trusting party is aware that >> actions by numerous other parties are required in order to realize >> certain real world effects, the collection of trust applicable to >> each step may be considered a chain of trust. However, trust is >> not transferred from the initial trusting party to others in the >> chain. Rather, the initial trusting party has an overall trust >> with the party participating in the initiating interaction, a trust >> that the actions performed by all parties throughout the process >> will lead to the expected effects. Each party in the chain has an >> individual level of trust with its immediate interacting party, but >> this may have little or no impact on the overall level of trust of >> the initiating party. >> >> Risk >> ------ >> Risk is a personal perception or conclusion that certain >> undesirable real world effects may come into being. As with trust, >> risk can occur in the context of interaction or without actions on >> the part of the party perceiving the risk. The party perceiving >> risk may take actions to mitigate the risk. For example, I assess >> a high degree of risk to clicking on an email link where I believe >> the email to be spam, and I forgo any possible benefit by not >> clicking on the link. Alternately, I see a risk in having a hard >> drive fail and I mitigate the effect of losing files by backing up >> those I consider important. >> >> As with trust, risk is not transferred along a chain but risk may >> be accepted as part of an interaction. Consider two scenarios. In >> the first, a sender desires to send a family photograph to another >> family member who acts as the receiver. The photograph is sent by >> way of a courier service and insured for $200. While the >> photograph is in transit, the sender has the risk the irreplaceable >> photograph can be lost. The courier's risk is the cost of the $200 >> insurance and there is no sense of additional risk because of the >> nature of the photograph. There is an acceptance of risk by the >> courier but not a transfer from the sender; the sender continues to >> have the original risk of loss. >> >> As a second scenario, consider the same sender and courier but this >> time the item being sent is something easily purchased for $200. >> Once the courier agrees to insuring the package, the sender is >> relieved of all risk except for possibly the inconvenience of the >> insurance claim and purchasing the replacement. The courier has >> the identical risk as in the first scenario -- the cost of the $200 >> insurance. >> >> Relationship between trust and risk >> ------------------------------------------------ >> A party's actions are based on a combination of perceived trust and >> perceived risk. If there is little or no perceived risk, then the >> degree of trust may not be relevant in assessing possible actions. >> For example, most people consider there to be an acceptable level >> of risk to privacy when using search engines, and submit queries >> without any sense of trust being considered. >> >> As perceived risk increases, the issue of trust becomes more of a >> consideration. There are recognized risks in providing or >> accepting credit cards as payment, and standard procedures have >> been put in place to increase trust by mitigating risk. For >> interactions with a high degree of risk, the trusting party >> requires stronger or additional evidence when evaluating the >> balance between risk and trust when deciding whether to participate >> in an interaction. >> >> </trust_risk> >> >> Now this is a fairly general discussion of trust and risk. While a >> decent lead-in (assuming concurrence after some degree of >> modification), what is missing is how this relates to SOA. Do >> activities in a SOA ecosystem merely mirror other activities, and >> thus trust and risk are applicable in the same ways? Or, is there >> something special in SOA? I expect David will tell us there are >> special things, and that is what we need to capture next. >> >> Ken >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Ken Laskey >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >> McLean VA 22102-7508 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/ >> my_workgroups.php > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]