Re: Single model or framework for reputation/trust

Alan DeKok wrote:

> Ed Gerck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >   Reputation (or past behavior) is a strong indicator of future
> > > behavior.  It shouldn't be ignored.
> >
> > Of course not. But take a looks at banks: they never lend money
> > based on reputation as a strong indicator.
>
>   "never" is perhaps a little strong.

good banks never do. SOP.

>   Look at Venture Capitalists in the computer world.  They loan
> millions based on promises & reputation.

No. They invest millions based on a number of factors, the least
of which are promises. Company reputation is zero for start-ups!
Individual reputation is not as important as market, product and team,
for example.

> > No. What the example says is that reputation is NOT a strong
> > indicator of future behavior.
>
>   I'm sorry to disagree with you and Bertrand Russell, but the story
> is based on misconceptions, as I pointed out previously.  Was the
> chicken wrong for 6 months, when it predicted that "today, the farmer
> will feed me?"  No.

The story illustrates the leap of faith that occurs when reputation
is used to predict behavior. It's simply not warranted. The chicken
should never have predicted anything based on reputation alone.
Yes, the chicken  (now food) was indeed wrong in not making
a trust determination (according to trust rules) and relying on reputation
alone.

You can't rely on reputation to predict behavior, as Russel's chicken
story exemplifies. To do so would be a leap of faith.

Back to email. Of course, many people (myself included) want to be able to
exchange mail with people they do not trust. But should we in this WG
develop a worldwide protocol that people will use to supposedly rely on to
prevent spam, based on anything less than what "rely on" means? To  rely
on means to trust. To be able to trust future beahvior, we need more than
just past behavior. We need more than reputation.

Cheers,
Ed Gerck