Topoi

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 253–266 | Cite as

The Semantics of Untrustworthiness

Article

Abstract

We offer a formal treatment of the semantics of both complete and incomplete mistrustful or distrustful information transmissions. The semantics of such relations is analysed in view of rules that define the behaviour of a receiving agent. We justify this approach in view of human agent communications and secure system design. We further specify some properties of such relations.

Keywords

Trust Mis- and Distrust Information Transmission Expertise Secure System Design 

References

  1. Abdul-Rahman A, Hailes S (1997) A distributed trust model. In: New security paradigms workshop. Cumbria, UK, pp 48–60Google Scholar
  2. Audi R (1997) The place of testimony in the fabric of justification and knowledge. Am Philos Q 34:405–422Google Scholar
  3. Beth T, Borcherding M, Klein B (1994) Valuation of trust in open networks. In: Proceedings of the third European symposium on research in computer security, ESORICS ’94. Springer, London, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  4. Borgs C, Chayes J, Kalai AT, Malekian A, Tennenholtz M (2010) A novel approach to propagating distrust. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Internet and network economics, WINE’10. Springer, Berlin, pp 87–105Google Scholar
  5. Brewer S (1998) Scientific expert testimony and intellectual due process. Yale Law J 107(6):1535–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi C (2004) Trust mediation in knowledge management and sharing, volume 2995 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 304–318Google Scholar
  7. Chen R, Yeager W (2003) Poblano: a distributed trust model for peer-to-peer networks. Technical report. Sun Microsystems, Santa ClaraGoogle Scholar
  8. Christianson B, Harbison (1997) Why isn’t trust transitive? In: Security protocols 4, volume 1189 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–176Google Scholar
  9. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalton R (2001) Peers under pressure. Nature 413:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dastani M, Herzig A, Hulstijn J, Van Der Torre L (2004) Inferring trust. In: Proceedings of the fifth workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA V), volume 3487 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 144–160Google Scholar
  12. Demolombe R (2004) Reasoning about trust: a formal logic framework, volume 2995 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–303Google Scholar
  13. De Winter J, Kosolosky L (2012) The epistemic integrity of scientific research. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1–18Google Scholar
  14. De Winter J, Kosolosky L (2013) The epistemic integrity of NASA practices in the space shuttle program. Account Res 20(2):72–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faulkner P (2012) The practical rationality of trust. Synthese 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0103-1
  16. Floridi L (2011) The philosophy of information. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frances B (2005) Skepticism comes alive. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gans G, Jarke M, Kethers S, Lakemeyer G May (2001) Modeling the impact of trust and distrust in agent networks. In: Proceedings of the third international bi-conference workshop on agent-oriented information systems. Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldman A (2001) Experts: which ones should you trust? Philos Phenomenol Res 63(1):85–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guha R, Kumar R, Raghavan P, Tomkins A (2004) Propagation of trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’04. ACM, New York, pp 403–412Google Scholar
  21. Haack S (2004) Truth and justice, inquiry and advocacy, science and law. Ratio Iuris 17(1):15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardwig J (1991) The role of trust in knowledge. J Philos 88:693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herzig A, Lorini E, Hübner JF, Vercouter L (2010) A logic of trust and reputation. Log J IGPL 18(1):214–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jespersen B, Primiero G (2013) Alleged assassins: realist and constructivist semantics for modal modification. In: Bezhanishvili G et al (Ed) TbiLLC 2011, volume 7758 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamvar SD, Garcia-Molina H, Schlosser MT (2003) The eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in p2p networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’03. ACM, NewYork, pp 640–651Google Scholar
  26. Kosolosky L ‘Peer review is melting our glaciers’: exploring how and why the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) went astray. J General Philos Sci. Special Issue on Climate Change to appearGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramer S, Goré R, Okamoto E (2012) Computer-aided decision-making with trust relations and trust domains (cryptographic applications). J Log Comput. doi:10.1093/logcom/exs013
  28. Leonelli S (2014) Data interpretation in the digital age. In: Perspective on Science. MIT Press (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  29. Lewis JD, Weigert AJ (1985) Trust as a social reality. Soc Forces 63:967–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2000) Trust and distrust definitions: one bite at a time. In: Falcone R, Singh MP, Tan Y-H (eds) Trust in cyber-societies, integrating the human and artificial perspectives, volume 2246 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, berlin, pp 27–54Google Scholar
  31. Miller B (forthcoming) Scientific consensus and expert testimony in courts: lessons from the bendectin litigation. In: Froeyman A, Kosolosky L, van Bouwel J (eds) Foundations of science, special Issue on ‘science vs. society: social epistemology meets the philosophy of the humanitiesGoogle Scholar
  32. Primiero G (2012) A contextual type theory with judgemental modalities for reasoning from open assumptions. Logique Anal 220:579-600Google Scholar
  33. Primiero G (2013) A taxonomy of errors for information systems. Minds Machines. doi:10.1007/s11023-013-9307-5
  34. Primiero G, Jespersen B (2010) Two kinds of procedural semantics for privative modification, volume 6284 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 252–271Google Scholar
  35. Primiero G, Taddeo M (2012) A modal type theory for formalizing trusted communications. J Appl Log 10:92–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rotter JB (1971) Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Am Psychol 26:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapiro SP (1987) The social control of impersonal trust. Am J Sociol 93(3):623–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simpson T (2012) What is trust. Pacif Philos Q 93(4):55–569Google Scholar
  39. Taddeo M (2010) An information-based solution for the puzzle of testimony and trust. Soc Epistemol 24(4):285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taddeo M (2010) Modelling trust inartificial agents, a first step toward the analysis of e-Trust. Minds Machines 20(2):243–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations