Summary of Discussions
Tamar Frankel
May 21, 2007
Introduction
On February 28th, 2007, the InternetBar Organization invited qualified participants to discuss the creation of a trusting community on the Internet. The invitation listed a few mechanisms that might help create such a community, and then posed the question: What other mechanisms can be established to build a trusting and trusted community in the virtual world? Over two hundred participants took part in this discussion.
The following is a summary of the participants’ comments. The purpose of this summary is to offer the readers a sense of the main points that were made in the discussions as well as suggest possible focal points that can be further addressed and fleshed out.
Rather than follow the threads of discussions I organized the summary by the substance of the comments and identified the commentators in footnotes. Some participants’ names are footnoted more than once because they responded, agreed with, or continued the discussion on the particular comment.
By definition, a summary does not contain the entire summarized materials. I might have omitted important points and highlighted subjects that were not as important.. In addition, I might have failed to footnote all the participants that have contributed to the discussion of a particular point. For these omissions, I apologize.
Although I was named as the moderator, I posted little to lead the discussions with questions or comments and thank Edward Rholl and Orna Rabinovitz, who have contributed to leading the discussions.
Having read the posted materials I discerned a number of the themes, which have emerged as the outline of this summary. In addition, I followed generally the three levels of trust creation proposed by one commentator that is: personal relationships, organizational verification, and community enforcement. The summary moves from problems to proposed solutions and from specifics to the general on each point of discussion.
The discussions also revealed an interesting feature, which substantiate the participants’ ideas. The participants recognized and emphasized that anonymity on the Internet presents a barrier to trust while face to face interaction can strengthen trust. 1 Almost all participants used some mechanisms to lower the barrier of trust among themselves. Participants informed others about who there are, even where they lived, and about their life and their work. Some participants ask others to elaborate on their self-descriptions.2 Many revealed themselves by a fairly detailed description,3 or by stories of their experiences, such as fighting to end apartheid in South Africa,4 living in Iran during the overthrow of the regime in 1978,5 or being a second year Graduate Student (online) in the Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding Program of California State University Dominguez Hills as well as the Ugandan Foreign Officer serving at our diplomatic mission in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.6 Their interest and enjoyment brought about a sense of a face to face encounter.7
In sum, the participants practiced what they believed in. They began to create a community not by requirement or command but instinctively, by seeking affinity. Participants often complimented each other, ended their statements with a question to others: What are your thoughts? And expressed enthusiasm and excitement at the interchange. They exemplified the process of creating a trusting community on the Internet.
Some of the participants have had experience. They had initiated trusting groups on the Internet, such as Second Life.8 One participant has touched on the subject in his ADR class. There is a rising number of Internet communities that search for creative and good and trusting virtual reality (even though this seems a contradiction in terms, it is not).9 These are the signs of a movement that will flourish.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
How Can We Create a Trusting Community on the Internet?
One of the more serious problems of creating trust on the Internet is the absence of face-to-face interaction, that is, the anonymity of the actors.10 How can this barrier to trust be pulled down? Other problems that participants expressed relate to the difficulties of clearer understanding of each other: the ambiguities of human communications.11 Even though technology-enabling interaction exists and is getting better, the global population lives in different worlds, world-views, and “based on different levels of consciousness/awareness/ability to take perspectives.”12 In addition, participants recognized that building trust takes time.13
In fact, even among the participants views of human nature were not compatible. Opinions differed on the moral action of the taxi driver who returned to the passenger diamonds she left in his car: “Ours is not a perfect world. The taxi driver’s behavior is rare, ethical and moral.”14 Respect to one-self and others as choice are the most significant story here. He could choose between self-serving or honorable behavior.15 The driver benefited from being free of guilt and pain and feeling good about himself.16 Motive and not only actions are important.17 (ii) In addition to being altruistic and professional the drive was also rational.18 We have to trust taxi drivers, and they have a duty to be trustworthy.19 (iii) The driver was risk averse -- avoiding the consequences of “being suspected of theft.”20 Therefore, he had little choice but to do the right thing.21 He had to be accountable—a basis for trustworthiness. And here are other explanations22 (iv) The driver was not personally good but the organization for which he worked was strictly enforcing the rules.23 (v) Physically and emotionally, the driver was FORCED to return the diamonds. (vi) If only ONE diamond ring was left in his car he was less exposed to risk. His conflict was internal and not public. If he returned the one ring, it would show a higher degree of ethical behavior.24 (vi) Most people would not have returned the diamonds and would have made a cost-benefit analysis. This is the problem of creating trust. “As the moral fabric in modern day society is unraveling, people are losing their humanity by operating more from a strict cost/benefit analysis.25
The risk of abuse of trust, noted one participant, is present in countries that restrict open and free communications. These countries police people’s interaction because their governments’ assumptions about human beings are wrong.26 And yet, those who experienced the rising against oppression and violence are willing to take the risk and the rewards that accompany it.27 Even though it is easy to abuse the trusting system positive experiences should be highlighted as well.28 But not everyone agreed. One participant viewed humans are conflicting and untrustworthy, and therefore, they should be controlled.29
A general view of human nature was offered, based on Integral Theory expressed in the work of Ken Wilber. The view “stands for the proposition that all of human endeavor, communication and development--including each specific instance--operates in four quadrants that roughly correlate to the basic perspectives that cognitively developed people can take: I, you/we, it and its.”30 These interchanges demonstrate that we do not always agree with each other about human nature, which is fundamental to trust. And that is no surprise.
Proposed solutions to the failure of personal trust on the Internet. A number of proposals have been made to understand and strengthen personal trust on the Internet. First, trust-levels can be graded into (i) high -- interpersonal trust (ii) lower -- organizational and (iii) strong but involving weaknesses--community trust.
As to personal trust, the “perception of geographical, ideological or social distance, between participants reduces trust,” reduced accountability and raises mistrust. Even a minimal social information helps. Therefore, this perception must be changed, for example, by disclosing personal information, or offering personal picture, or a brief resume. Transparency, however, poses its own problems. For example, it can pose risk to privacy.
Technology can help strengthen trust by reducing anonymity. For example, communicating by video and recreating to some extent the face to face environment and signals.31
Yet technology may not be enough without the intellectual understanding and emotional acceptance of others32 and without considering the context in which the communication is made.
It is important to specify the context -- whether communication is aiming at business transactions or at creating an on going trusting community.33 Further, mass use of new technologies cultivates in people comfort towards an online community, even though it requires still a higher degree of trust.
Another proposed solution to the difficulties of online interaction was to give people choices of how to interact. Choices are important. For example, in addition to e-Bay there is craigslist for traders who do not wish to be rated but probably find some other ways to verify the trustworthiness of each other.34
Interest in others and efforts to understand them help bring trust. We should find out and understand the others’ concerns. The CEO of Blue Nile, a jewelry company, listens to the telephone conversations with customers in order to understand their concerns.
There were suggestions to take the risk of trust by trusting others first, and thus inducing the trust of others.35 As described in the introduction, participants provided information about themselves and engaged each other in personal information exchange describing their life and work and enjoying the interaction that begins to feel like face to face.36
One can deepen trust by demonstrating respect for differences among interacting parties. Commonality is the basis for trust on the Internet.37
By respecting differences between ourselves and others’38 recognizing and seeking to understand different cultures and differing reactions. Thus, respect can help create a new culture by focusing on their commonality (perhaps common goal). One of the great dangers to creating such a culture is miscommunications and the misunderstandings that arise from them.39
This is why we ought to learn more about humans in general and their needs. If we could establish a world-view and an understanding of professional governance we can enhance trusting. This requires the creating of several separate yet inter-related “spheres” of individual and professional governance that address the issue of trust.40 The starting point is universal needs, values, and desires.41 These can be broken down: “Regarding Universal Needs, (see Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs): Foundation of Physiological and then Safety and then Love/Belonging/ and then Esteem and then Personal needs, and self-actualization. 35. There is a hierarchy of needs. Each type of need builds upon one another and we ought to be aware of them. When a need of a higher importance is satisfied we can focus on the lesser needs, and so on. Thus, need for esteem arises only after essential needs of food and shelter are satisfied.
The online community can both help and hinder different levels of need. "Through the communication tools, people can connect with extended family. People can use the internet to map their genealogy and connect with distant relatives. Most importantly, the internet has spawned a community of its own. The capacity for developing new friendships is great. The online community can give people a sense of love and belonging. Massive dating sites give people the tools to find a romantic and/or sexual partner–even to find marriage. This power, however, leads to some of the biggest problems and biggest criticisms. The safety level interferes with the love and belonging level. Without mechanisms to build trust, safety, and protection, the internet can be a tool for heartache and alienation." Yet, the benefits from Internet communications are enormous. The Internet “is the biggest forum in the world for sharing ideas. Even in the early days of the internet, academia through LANs used the online community to share ideas. Through forums such as this, we give respect, get respect, build confidence, and strive for achievement. People throughout the world use the internet to gain education and to better themselves.” Further, the “internet gives us the tools to communicate and share ideas, and ODR is the ultimate symbol of problem solving in the online community. By building trust at the lower levels, we can achieve self-actualization. The Internet creates a forum for spreading ideas and education. We create, we instantly connect, we find ourselves through others. This is the ultimate goal. 9See, Maslow, Abraham. A Theory of Human Motivation. 1943).42 Therefore, the quest for trust online is worth the effort.
The use of third party assurances
Third parties can verify the truth of people’s assertions which others should trust.
One can create “access to extrinsic sources” of verification that leads to trust such as “(e.g. expert witness)” or “intrinsic (e.g., eye witness).” There are tools that empower relying parties with freedom to identify and choose preferred sources of trust and take preferred action, and mechanisms that protect from abuse of trust.43 Among verifiers44 of trust are TrustMark and a system of verifying such as eBay, and rating.45 Trademarks are important but balanced with safety.46 Yahoo’s “little customizable people icons” can be used and expanded to create necessary “social filters,” which exist in face to face interaction but a are missing on the Internet. Perhaps persons’ icon can be animated with social filters such as emoticons. 47
One of the participants called third party assurances “organizational trust,” meaning trusting the provider to identify and preclude trust violations. “Clients assess the organizations’ methods (eBay; bank websites’ security information), or organizations’ guarantee (security certificates, reputation). Members of a community trust by shared values. A community can play a role in ensuring trust among its members 50
Yet this highest level of trust is also the most vulnerable to Phishing and con- artists. “Trust in an online community needs to be considered...in terms of: perceived accountability; liability for violation; and what it means to be a responsible member of a trusted community. How can we meet all of these goals simultaneously remains a question.”48 However, guarantors can raise difficulties, and require public support.49 51
Community trust
While law may play an important role in the real world, in a virtual world the important role is played by community values---a shared culture, and most importantly, by the leadership which the community must produce.52
Thus, those who seek trust on the Internet must enter into a pact and commit to create an Internet community.53 This commitment should apply to different contexts. Not only in Trust is also important for businesses and economic development.54 Similar questions must be asked: What steps should we take to encourage business to be more transparent and encourage less educated people around the world to trust businesses?55
To create a community we must find out what is common to all of us: commonality.
We can analyze and emphasize common causes and education. 56 We should commit to the new global economy by creating appropriate rules and culture.57 These are Universal Rules for Internet-Age Lawyering: Technology, Infrastructure, Governance, Regulation and Enforcement, Access and Education 58
We should look for patterns of universal values. Most civilizations share these values, but perceive them differently, such as equality. “There is a need to identify commonality as well as the differences. Thus, while U.S. soldiers view the attackers on them as terrorists, some Iraqis may view the attackers as liberators of their country from foreign invaders.59 Uzbekistan and Japan are different and yet similar. 60 To feel the universal fraternity we much find the universal patterns, like addressing children and following the principle: do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."61 Important values that should become universal in an online environment are justice, safety, equality, respect, a degree of self-control and freedom should become core values on the Internet. Because regulation is sometimes necessary, they must be grounded in these values.62
Rules and enforcement
The participants had different views on the value of specific regulation. One suggested the need to “clarify and define new notions once for all, create conformity of the legal notions with the online numeric concepts, and the legal formal requirement i.e.: written notions, original document, online signature, seat of the legal service, binding and non binding nature of the service, and enforcement of the outcome. Once these questions are resolved, we will have a good online legal system that will have a serious impact on classic legal systems.”63 Another participant questioned the value of specific regulation. Although specific rules reduce uncertainty they might render it hard to bridge the gap among cultures. Therefore, there must be a balance between specific rules and more general standards.64
The focus on law brought to the fore ideas about enforcement. Participant suggested that a strong online legal system requires an accredited and internationally recognized third party to handle the certification matter. In addition it requires strict control to ensure legal services online. Further, it requires government agencies to guarantee results, and support the legal service provider, including ADR.65 The model of South Africa’s restorative justice (instead of retributive) was mentioned.66 But another participant noted that even though it is a desired course it is not effective for the kind of trust (not business trust) that we are aiming at.67
Education and ADR
Participants focused on education in different subjects, such as ethics.68
Others suggested learning by examining other cites, and by providing business with appropriate models. And one participant recommended to add ADR to law school curriculum.69
A participant suggested action-based approach such as ADR rather than character- based mechanisms. ADR can be the focus of discussion and measure of assurance of trustworthiness.70
It can be combined with a system like e-Bay and fraud investigation.71 There is a need for facilitators to mediate between video conferencing (face-to-face), overcoming cultural differences, security measures (e.g., eBay), and ADR at the transactional level. Using conferences was another option (International Forum on Dispute Resolution).
1 March 12th, 2007 mogino; April 28th, 2007 Sscorza
2 March 5th, 2007 jmconway April 24th, 2007 khartung; April 25th, 2007 Govinda
3 April 6th, 2007 mdthorne; April 24th, 2007 khartung ; April 25th, 2007 greenpeacemaker; April 26, 2007 mogino; May 10th, 2007 Angelina; May 12th, 2007 jd2b
6 ‹ Hi, from Kinshasa, DR Congo>
8 May 2nd, 2007 TrustEnabler
10 March 12th, 2007 mogino; April 28th, 2007 Sscorza
11 May 6th, 2007 Ed Rholl; April 29th, 2007 shunter: April 30th, 2007 greenpeacemaker
12 May 7th, 2007 Ed Rholl
13 April 30th, 2007 greenpeacemaker
14 May 3rd, PACBO; May 7th, 2007 Kimjfadden; May 13th, 2007 Angelina
15 May 15th, 2007 Charlene9
16 May 4th, 2007 Shunter
17 May 13th, 2007 Angelina
18 May 14th, 2007 Shohruh
19 May 15th, 2007 Elizabeth
20 May 4th, 2007 TrustEnabler; May 13th, 2007 Matt_Billings
21 May 4th, 2007 Pablo
22 May 7th, 2007 Kimjfadden
23 May 13th, 2007 Matt_Billings
24 May 4th, 2007 Khartung
25 May 12th, 2007 jd2b
26 May 6th, 2007 susananotar
29 May 16th, 2007 Diliana Stoyanova
31 April 28th, 2007 Sscorza; April 30th, 2007 mogino; May 6th, 2007 Ed Rholl ; May 12th, 2007 andy p
35 April 25th, 2007 greenpeacemaker ; April 29th, 2007 shunter
37 April 29th, 2007 shunter; May 12 monino; May 16th, 2007 khartung
38 April 30, 2007 greenpeacemaker. April 30th, 2007 mogino
43 April 29th, 2007 TrustEnabler. http://trustenablement.com/local/Building_Trust_in_a_Law_Firm.pdf.
http://trustenablement.com/local/The_Challenges_of_Online_Trust-slides.p....
48 May 13th, 2007 Matt_Billings
50 April 29th, 2007 TrustEnabler. See http://trustenablement.com/local/Building_Trust_in_a_Law_Firm.pdf.
http://trustenablement.com/local/The_Challenges_of_Online_Trust-slides.p....
51 May 13th, 2007 Matt_Billings
52 May 2nd, 2007, May 6, 2007 Jeffrey Aresty’s post
53 April 29, 2007. Shunter
54 May 10th, 2007 Orna Rabinovich
55 May 10th, 2007 greenpeacemaker
56 March 12th, 2007 mogino. April 24th, 2007 khartung
57 March 5th, 2007 jmconway; April 29th, 2007 shunter:
59 May 14th, 2007 Shohruh ; May 17th, 2007 Iris
63 ‹ Hi, from Kinshasa, DR Congo
64 April 29, 2007. Shunter; April 30th, 2007 greenpeacemaker
65 ‹ Hi, from Kinshasa, DR Congo
67 May 17th, 2007 jd2b; May 17th, 2007 mogino
68March 12th, 2007 mogino; May 10th, 2007 Angelina .
69 April 30th, 2007 khartung May 2nd, May 8th, 2007 Pablo
70 March 12th, 2007 mogino; April 25th, 2007 Govinda; April 25th, 2007 greenpeacemaker; April 29th, 2007 TrustEnabler; May 17th, 2007 jd2b
