Non-standards for Trust: Foreground Trust and Second Thoughts for Mobile Security

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7170)


In this paper, we introduce and discuss Foreground Trust. Foreground Trust, itself based on recent work in the area of Trust Enablement, is a paradigm for allowing devices in a human-device ecosystem the means to reason with and about trust in themselves, other devices, and humans, whilst allowing humans to make trusting decisions using their own internal models (whatever they may be) based on cues from the environment — including the device(s) in use at the time. We discuss the paradigm, and present an actualization of it in the form of Device Comfort, a model of device reasoning based on environmental cues, and the use of the device status to help users make informed trusting and security decisions for themselves. In particular we focus on the interface between user and device to help the user make trust-based decisions and use second thoughts as a means to educate and raise user awareness about their security in online and mobile behaviours.


Trust Model Ubiquitous Computing Computational Trust Persuasive Technology Trust Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahmed, M., Quercia, D., Hailes, S.: A statistical matching approach to detect privacy violation for trust-based collaborations. In: Sixth IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks, WoWMoM, pp. 598–602 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber, B.: Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jean Camp, L.: Design for Trust in Ambient and Ubiquitous Computing. In: González Nieto, J., Reif, W., Wang, G., Indulska, J. (eds.) ATC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5586, pp. 1–1. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model. Wiley (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, G., Kotz, D.: A survey of context-aware mobile computing research. Technical report (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cofta, P.: Trust, Complexity and Control: Confidence in a Convergent World. Wiley (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corner, M.D., Noble, B.D.: Zero-interaction authentication. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Communications, Atlanta, GA (September 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsch, M.: Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In: Jones, M.R. (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska University Press (1962)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dey, A.K., Abowd, G.D.: Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology - GVU Technical Report; GIT-GVU-99-22 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwyer, N.: Traces of Digital Trust: An Interactive Design Perspective. PhD thesis, School of Communication and thre Arts, Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development, Victoria University (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gambetta, D. (ed.): Trust. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golbeck, J. (ed.): Computing with Social Trust. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Josang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kientz, J.A., Choe, E.K., Birch, B., Maharaj, R., FOnville, A., Glasson, C., Mundt, J.: Heuristic evaluation of persuasive health technologies. In: Proceedings IHI 2010, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 555–564 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langheinrich, M.: When trust does not compute - the role of trust in ubiquitous computing. In: Proceedings of Privacy Workshops of Ubicomp 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lederer, S., Dey, A.K., Mankoff, J.: Everyday privacy in ubiquitous computing environments. Technical report, World Bank, Policy Research Department (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power. Wiley, Chichester (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luhmann, N.: Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust, ch. 6, pp. 94–107. Blackwell (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Stirling (1994),
  21. 21.
    Marsh, S.: Smart documents, mobile queries: Information provision and retrieval using a multi-agent system. In: Ferguson, I. (ed.) AI in Digital Libraries - Moving from Chaos to (More) Order, Proceedings of Workshop at International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan (August 1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marsh, S.: Comfort zones: Location dependent trust and regret management for mobile devices. In: Proceedings LocationTrust 2010: Workshop on Location as Context for Trust at IFIPTM 2010, Morioka Japan (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marsh, S., Briggs, P.: Examining trust, forgiveness and regret as computational concepts. In: Golbeck, J. (ed.) Computing with Social Trust. Human Computer Interaction Series, ch.2, pp. 9–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marsh, S., Briggs, P.: Defining and investigating device comfort. In: Proceedings of IFIPTM 2010: Short Papers (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marsh, S., Briggs, P., El-Khatib, K., Esfandiari, B., Stewart, J.A.: Defining and investigating device comfort. Journal of Information Processing 19, 231–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marsh, S., Ghorbani, A.A., Bhavsar, V.C.: The ACORN Multi-Agent System. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 1(1), 65–86 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harrison McKnight, D., Chervany, N.L.: Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 27–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1990), pp. 249–256. ACM (1990)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Noble, B.D., Corner, M.D.: The case for transient authentication. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Centre for the Study of Language and Information (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schilit, B.N., Adams, N., Want, R.: Context-aware computing applications. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pp. 85–90. IEEE Computer Society (1994)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sillence, E., Briggs, P.: Ubiquitous computing: Trust issues for a “healthy” society. Social Science Computer Review 26(1), 6–12 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tomko, G., Borrett, D.S., Kwan, H.C., Steffan, G.: Smartdata: Make the data “think” for itself. Identity in the Information Society 3(2), 343–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang, Y., Komanduri, S., Leon, P.G., Norcie, G., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L.F.: “I regretted the minute I pressed share”: A Qualitative Study of Regrets on Facebook. In: Proceedings SOUPS 2011: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, Y.: Trust and Reputation Management in Decentralized Systems. PhD thesis, University of Saskatchewan (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, Y., Vassileva, J.: Trust and reputation model in peer-to-peer networks. In: IEEE Conference on P2P Computing, pp. 150–157 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communications Research CentreCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceGlasgow UniversityUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyNorthumbria UniversityUK
  4. 4.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityCanada
  5. 5.Faculty of Business and Information TechnologyUOITCanada

Personalised recommendations