How To Trust Someone
The Matter of Trust
Nobody builds a civilization alone. The craftsman has to work with material specialists and tool specialists. Each of the craftsmen has to work alongside the merchant, who is linking a group of other craftsmen to put the factory together with other producers to form a network, and forging protocols for efficient coordination. Trust is a means and platform of making our social life simpler and safer, and of enabling and empowering symbiotic possible cooperative activities which each of us could not undertake alone. Trust is required for many cooperative value-making activities which seem to make human life both liveable and worth living, such as human friendship and love, the food production, and the raising of children.
The creation and evolution of a civilization requires many different kinds of skills, and it is not a few good people that can acquire skills within a short time. People have to come together to make things happen. The reason why humans can excel against other species is writing and organization. Information can be passed to and down to other people because of writing. Information is coordinated with people and down the generations because of organization. However, the confidence towards the veracity of the information and the intent of the information must first be established, trust is the platform before confidence is waged. Confidence towards and among people is what builds relationships.
If you cannot trust your people, make them trustworthy, you cannot empower them. You limit the power of the organization from the core operational empowerment.
To go fast, go alone. To go far, go together. — African Proverb
狼羊同床，岂能安眠. (The wolves and lambs lie together, would the sleep by sound?)
The lion and the lamb lie down together but the lamb won’t get much sleep. — Woody Allen
So, how do we build the basis of trust? There are 4 factors or caliber to trust a person. They are Courage, Integrity (Consistency), Ability (Competency), and Benevolence (Compassion).
There is a difference between moral integrity, moral ability, moral courage, and moral benevolence. As humans, we may believe and feel strongly for a certain cause (benevolence), and most willing to do so, but lack the will, (integrity), strength and means (ability), and emotional endurance (courage) to do so. This may not be mount to be a voluntary hypocrisy, as much as efforts is being put to resist it.
C.I.A.B. (Courage 勇, Integrity, 义, Ability 能, Benevolence 仁)
Trust, But Verify (Доверя́й, но проверя́й)
Courage
People may breach your trust because they could be under threats and duress, and they may not have the courage to hold your secrets. They may cower to complicit in silence or turn you in at the most needful moment.
Courage is the substance that holds a person’s sanity. Going with integrity, they form the grounds of honor. It is per se the moral strength of the person to live up to his or her own code. Likewise, if people can betray or give up others, it would be a matter of time they betray or give up themselves. It is grit that people keep moving forward, and seek the faintest of hope in the darkest hours. Fundamentally, without moral courage, sanity holds no tenable ground.
Yet, bear in mind, that we are not condemning anyone. We must know where their limits are by the strength of the material they are made of. The same where we have to reserve our confidence on the bridge when we understood their breaking point on the strain and stress to failure.
Caveat: The counter-reactive of having courage and lacking the others is callous audacity.
Integrity
People may be innately lack that as an upbringing.
Integrity contains the moral courage to hold reliability to remain consistent to abide and deliver the promise.
The "Tomb of 3 Kings" (三王墓, sān wáng mù)
According to the historical text Wuyue Chunqiu, King Helü of Wu ordered Gan Jiang and Mo Ye to forge a pair of swords for him in 3 months. However, the desired quality took 3 years. The pair of swords were named after the couple. Gan Jiang kept the male version of the sword, Ganjiang, for himself and presented the female version of the sword, Moye, of the pair to the king. The king, who was already very unpleased from the delay, had Gan Jiang executed when he discovered Gan Jiang had kept the other sword. Gan Jiang had left behind a message for Mo Ye and their unborn son (Chi (赤)) about the hidden sword.
The paranoid king dreamed of Chi’s desire to kill him and, in fear, he placed a bounty on the youth's head and the sword. Despite the peril, Chi, filled with anguish, wanted to proceed with his vengeance. Later, he met an assassin who offered him the king’s head. However, he needed 2 things from Chi - the 2nd sword and Chi’s own head. Without hesitation, Chi entrusted the assassin and committed suicide.
The assassin brought Chi's head along with the lost sword to the overjoyed king. The king was however disquieted with Chi’s stare. The assassin suggested a ritual of exorcism to have Chi's head boiled, so that the king can hold the sword in peace. However, Chi's head seemed no sign of unravelling. The assassin asked the king to see. Upon the king bending over to close up the view, the assassin seized the opportunity to decapitate him, and the king’s head fell into the cauldron. The guards rushed in, and knowing he had no way out, the assassin swiftly cut off his own head, which also fell into the boiling water. The head had all unravelled under the intense heat, hence, no one could recognize which head belonged to whom.
All 3 heads were eventually buried together at Yichun County, Runan, Henan, and the grave is called the "Tomb of 3 Kings" (三王墓, sān wáng mù)."""
Integrity has to have consistency and completeness. - 2011-08.09If you can't keep your honor and integrity, you can't keep anything much worthy in life. - 2010-06.16A man who cannot keep his word, cannot keep his friends. - 2010-06.16Integrity is to live in the same principles of the totality of one's life. - 2010-12.28Honor and integrity are things you should never sell, it's for your inheritance. With rationality, they are the basis of sanity and the currency of trust. - 2012-04.05The distance between your walk and your talk is the measurement of your integrity. - 2012-09.14Integrity and pride and be differentiate from the stench emanated from 1 of them. - 2012-11.04Most people cannot really tell the difference between integrity and pride, they trade away the wrong thing. If it is not clear enough, you can lose integrity, just to protect and nurse your pride. - 2018-08.04Broken promises is an indicator of a likely broken integrity. - 2014-12.20The integrity of intention becomes questionable when the play of words is twisting to the politics of convenience. - 2018-01.29The truth worth of a person should be measured by his / her 骨气 ("spirit of the spine" a.k.a. fortitude and integrity). The opposite is 没骨气 (lacking spine or "spineless") which is more demeaning than 没出息 (good for nothing). - 2019-07.09Integrity is the last stronghold before the person loses his own sanity. - 2020-06.28
"""
Hear what they say, see what they do.
— Confucius (September 28, 551 BC — April 11, 479 BC)
Caveat: The counter-reactive of having integrity and lacking the others is blind and unreasonable rigidity or even bigotry.
Ability
People may not intend any harm, but they may be careless or lack the ability to help.
We all have come across altruistic people who have the will and willingness to help, but they just lack the means. Sometimes, they can even blundered the situation in the process of trying. They may have kind intentions, but they lack the measures to match to them.
There are people who are
1. Unconscious incompetent - knows not, and knows not that he knows not.
2. Conscious incompetence - knows not, and knows that he knows not
3. Conscious competence - knows, and knows that he knows
4. Unconscious competence - knows, and knows not that he knowsHe who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, if he is a fool — shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, if he is willing — teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, if he is asleep — wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, if he is a wise man — follow him.
- Anonymous
What is key is to recognize the deficit or incompetence, and not deny the usefulness of the faculty, and have the will and willingness to act.
Ability can be assessed by the factors of 5 E’s:
1. Endurance (or Effort),
2. Expertise,
3. Equipment (including Information, including a handle, such as a weakness or vulnerability, which can be used as an Exploit),
4. Espionage (Inside job, in the field of security, here it is a misnomer in this case, but a definitive description of how missing information or perspective that can make that decisive difference), and
5. some Eventuality aka `Enriched Expectation`(possible event, or something that may happen, a factor of “engineered luck” or “engineered emergence” or surgical timing, i.e. process of coming into being or realization or becoming exposed after being concealed, whether deliberate or random chance)Caveat: The counter-reactive of having ability and lacking the others is ability to do harm, abuse or crafted deceit, and even carry out effective large scale damage.
The Crafted Deception With No Lies
One of Liu Bang's advisors, Li Yiji (酈食其, 268–204 BC), was a formidable negotiator (说客, suì kè). He was said to have entered cities unarmed and alone, and 6 fortresses relinquished without firing a single arrow. There was one city that was easy to defend but hard to surmount. Li Yiji asked Liu Bang that if he could get the city to surrender, would this time, he could obtain 1/2 of what the city owned. Liu Bang thought and said that he rather march his army. Li Yiji posed a supposition of what if he can do in 3 days and save costly military expenses of weapons and human lives. Back then, in the military, there is a rule that if a solemn commitment was declared, it must be signed. The outcome must be delivered or the penalty would be his own head. Li Yiji signed the commitment.Liu Bang's forces waited for 3 days, thinking it was a loss cause. On the morning when they were about to abort waiting and launch the attack, Li Yiji opened the gate and ushered the army to enter. Liu Bang's forces were all confused and skeptical, but the fortress had disarmed and abided for the city full peaceful audit and take-over.Liu Bang's administration was confounded and asked Li Yiji how he did it. Li Yiji replied, "On Day 1, the warlord was busy, so I spoke with the children, and asked what they had been doing. They liked my visit and shared with me their plans and future aspirations."He continued, "On Day 2, the warlord was still busy, so I spoke with his wife, and she confided with me about the warlord's worries and frustrations. As the next day, they have family death anniversary, I helped to prepare for the event."Li Yiji retold the 3rd day, "On Day 3, the warlord shared memories with me and we wept together. I told the time to share about the family problems and aspirations and suggested they surrender. The warlord agreed."Liu Bang was amazed, but then he wondered, "How are you so sure he won't turn hostile?"Li Yiji answered, "because he is my younger brother."Liu Bang and the rest remonstrated that Li Yiji had set them up for that 1/2 city ownership. One of them pounced on Li Yiji but then laughed and said, "you are a fox ! ... No wonder you are the number one lobbyist (chinese termed them - suì kè)"
Benevolence
People may have all the above, but they are just unkind people who harbor harm.
The poignant sense of empathy is a good reference of benevolence. Empathy is also an ability to read and understand the other persons’ needs.
The problem is that very few noticed that the parable of Medusa was the victim of injustice. Similarly, Minotaur never chose to be born that way, was condemned from birth, likely abused, and abandoned to a lifetime of tragic confusion and entrapment, even to their bitter deaths, is telling a grave reflection on the quality of humanity itself.
We simply cannot trust someone who does not spare a thought for our safety and well-being, or even disregard it as an expense for their own narcissistic and hedonistic pursuits.
You use less resources to build your trustworthiness than to guard against the untrusted. — Ursa
疑人不用, 用人不疑 (yí rén bù yòng, yòng rén bù yí): When you doubt someone, do not deploy that person. If you deploy that person, do not doubt.Caveat: The counter-reactive of having benevolence and lacking the others is the fragility and failure to abide with not bearing to hurt your deadly enemy even in midst of desperate defense and deterrence for you when the fiends are out to hunt you.
Misplaced non-universal or parochial affinity is also questionable. When affinity is exclusive, partisan and diseased with bias and preferences, and when it is unchecked by integrity and justice, corruption is likely.
How does it feel to ignore the prayers of those who ignore your cry for help in the 1st place? - 2015-05.31
Courage, integrity and benevolence are qualities that measures the will and willing of the person, despite whether or not they have the ability. It correlates to their values and what they will live or even die for.
Without the 4 qualities, the trust cannot gain sufficient confidence to be consummated. These are also the same 4 qualities to make refined quality humans which will push humanity forward to an elevated form of society.
The combinatorics of the 4 elemental qualities builds a variety of virtues forming the human will, willingness, commitment and devotion to a cause, motif, or motive.
It behooves refined people to earn their currency of trust from relentless refining themselves, their crafts and craftsmanship.
Security is a costly industry. The industry burn billions of dollars in security research, development and production to “fix security”. Unfortunately experts in that field is nescient of alternative solution like education. Secure computing and trusted computing by themselves are evolving schools of thought. It is still both art and science today.
Better families, and more and better schools, less jails — More school, less jails.
— Ursa“Good guys, bad guys, (they keep using these loose terms) … Who — is holier than thou?”
The panacea is likely “more schools, less jail”. Some may argue that it is a fool’s dream, yet how much resource has been committed to match that will and willingness to improve on that direction? Much of education is focus on individual functional survival faculty, not self-refinement. The measurement is net worth, not self-worth.
Someone told me these urban parables 20+ years ago. It was a paradigm shift that started the question of benevolence. The Sincere Gift of Free Will
God saw the devil strolling in Eden, and asked, "what have you been doing these days".Lucifer replied, "nothing much, here and there".God saw that the devil was perplexed and asked further, "something seems to be bothering you. What to talk about it?"Lucifer inquired, "I was puzzled why you build such a paradise for the humans and yet be so unfair to them".God asked, "how have I been unfair?"Lucifer replied, "look at them, everything was set for them. Look at them, they don't have a mind of their own. You, the Absolute, You, The High Almighty, ... You decide everything for them. "God laughed, "you the hater of mankind, fighting for their rights? ok, what should I do for them?"Lucifer replied, "give them - free-will. Let them choose - for themselves".After Lucifer left, the archangels warned about the devil's scheme. God assured his archangels, "do you think Lucifer had free-will? I merely gave him the same illusion".Sporting Man With The Polarity Trick For Divine Amusement
A god of fate was bored and he saw 2 farmers toiling their fields in their usual boring, quiet lives. He puts on a hat, ½ red, ½ white, and walks between their fields. Curious with a stranger uncommon to that isolated land, their discussion of the stranger with disparately perceived hats turned heated. Their argument quickly turned into the use of fists, and from the use of fists to nearby ploughs. Then a series of arms race from ploughs to a series of innovative weapons. The god of fate sat by for his own amusement.
The `Will` To Act (意)
When the intent is woven into a will, it will find its willingness. C.I.A.B. (Courage 勇, Integrity, 义, Ability 能, Benevolence 仁) cannot be passive. It has to be proactive, and this factor is the means to enliven the 4 factors which gains the confidence of the people and earns their rightful trust.
Trust Oracles: Observability
The Trust Oracles are a framework of test profile assessments to check who you can trust and to what extent. Yet, before we start to address the trust oracles for trust assessment profiling, we have to ensure 2 things — the soundness of the operation and its operator. In addressing the operation, if the oracles are misused or mishandled, it will not be able to produce the results accurately. As well, in addressing the operator, if the person measuring the process is flawed, the results will be subjected to the same pride, prejudice and preferences of the operator who is using them in the measurement. The oracles can be misused to only cull out the facts and filter off the critical ones which are vital for well-informed decisions, and rendering only a degraded version of reality.
One of the biases of the operator is attributional bias or error (also known as correspondence bias or over attribution effect) which is a cognitive bias that affects the way humans determine who or what was responsible for an event or action (attribution). This is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. Usually, the subject will externalize aversive attribution against others and internalize desirable causality to oneself. This is often seen as part of self serving attributions. So, if something good happens to themselves or someone they like, they tend to see it as having an internal cause, and when bad things happen to themselves or people they like they are more likely to make external attributions. Most of the time, it can be a combination, e.g. the subject will affirm — “I failed because it was an accident and it’s all their fault”.
One explanation of self-serving bias is motivational and protectional. People are motivated to protect their self-esteem, and so create causal explanations that serve to make them feel better. Another explanation focuses on social strategic impression management, where although the subjects may not believe their own self-serving sophistry, they may nevertheless offer it to others in order to create a favorable impression.
The third reason could be a form of cognitive dissonance where these people might have confirmation bias more available in memory. It may be a result of long term superiority complex to subconsciously dispute it in their own favor. They will persist in unjustified, obdurate preconceived notions on either preference towards or bias against certain people. It will subject them to self-entitlement and self-blinding delusion which will distort their soundness of judgement, causing them to make flawed decisions if not eventually fatal.
Yet fundamentally, people involved in an action (actors) view things differently from people not involved (observers). These discrepancies are often caused by asymmetries in availability (a.k.a. “salience” by self-referencing), i.e. the behavior of an actor is more available to memory (and therein more available for later consideration). As well, a person’s own inner turmoil is more available and therein more intense to themselves than it is to someone else.
On top of that, choice-supportive or confirmation affirmative bias is an effect seen in memory when people are more likely to remember positive attributes as having been part of the option they chose than of the option they rejected.
When people are asked that, statistically, what are the chances they may be performing better than the average person in driving. A majority think they drive better than the average driver even when they have no sufficient reference or source in comparison. When we know in statistics if they had not jumped into attribution bias, they should know the answer is 50%.Therefore, before we question any basis of trust on others, we must first calibrate the Trust Oracles upon on ourselves.
Questioning Oracles
Questioning Courage
Fate sieves out those who transcend beyond their weaknesses and surmount above their adversity with the “will to act”.
Instead of merely talking or smiling, the person should proactively take questions regarding possible approach to provide value. Surface value is fakery. If a customer care agent or friend offers only prayers and well-wishes, or merely words of encouragement with no matching of concrete help, the intent, willingness and courage to commit to real proactive help is questionable to even be of existence. None of it is real or sincere.
1. Does his words match his acts of will?
2. Is his promise specific and with specific timed promise delivery? Or are they vague and hint to wane in no time?
3. Is the person making or daring any commitment?
4. Conducting his courage vulnerability assessment, can the person be intimidated into submission? Does the person have a hidden weakness or exploitable desperation?“Fear drives the wretched to prayer” — Lucius Annaeus Seneca (circa. 4 BC — AD 65)
“Fate leads the willing, and drags along the reluctant.” — Lucius Annaeus Seneca (circa. 4 BC — AD 65)
Questioning Integrity
The person may be pretending to be on our side to purchase credibility, cooperation and access. For example, a business man may inform us that if we want a product he will order it for us, and he feels we should know something first. He will tell us that consumers would never realized that the manufacturer uses recycled materials on the inside. He would have thus gained our complete confidence. However, he may be playing a risk in gambit to tell us something that we could never find out or verify with otherwise, and now we will be inclined to trust and depend anything on what he says so that he can play higher stakes on us.
1. Can the person match his words with actions? Is there too many extraneous superlatives in his speech?
2. Does the person follow up and follow through? Does the person do what is said, and says what the person does and give concrete specifics to what and how they will be done?
3. Conducting his integrity vulnerability assessment, can the person be tempted and bribed into corruption? Does the person have a hidden weakness of exploitable desire?
4. Can the person provide a source and means to verify and validate his/her claims?Questioning Ability
The person may have kind intentions, s/he may have the courage and will to act, and the person will go to any means and ends to try to deliver that promise — but the person may not be able to. We need to assess the confidence level of the capacity to deliver. This requires us to collect evidential confidence. In making the trust assessments, aside historical or reputational data, we need to assess the assessors themselves. How would we know the resume and credentials are not collaborated, and rigged to fabricate a perceived value fall less than what is stated?
1. Is the well-doer efficient and effective? Does the well-intended actions match the tactical outcome?
2. Does the person have a real plan? How sound, correct, sufficient, if not complete, is the plan? Is the plan feasible?
3. Is it likely that the person will fall far too short from the promise and fervor he is touting?
4. Is this person showing diligence in self-enhancement? Are his/her pursuits objectively constructive?
5. Is the person aware of his/her lacking and flaws?
6. Conducting his ability vulnerability assessment, can the person be derailed by confusion or manipulated by bias? Does the person have blinding pride, prejudice or parochial preferences?"""
Prayers, or any customary condolences wishing, is the pretense of action, hence they are active inaction. Such behavior is dangerous proactive distraction, and not just futile. While discussion can be focused on strategic ways to counter and solve problems, it destruct constructive intervention by burying and noising out the real measures that can matter to save lives. - 2015-04.01
"""
One of the strongest hint is if the person is able to rationalize the principles of his know-what and know-how, i.e. — the know-why. It is an indication of deep-rooted knowledge and expertise, aside surface advertising. It demonstrates rigor soundness of mentation, and therefore, the operational correctness and sufficiency of the person.
浅水藏不得蛟龙 (qiǎn shuǐ cáng bù dé jiāo lóng): "Shallow waters cannot keep the dragons in" meaning the situation is beneath the remarkable.person and cannot be beneficial to the growth of the talent who is potential and destined for far greater things.Sound and rigor reasoning is an indicator of a sound and rigor mind. - Ursa...is like saying that we want you to fireproof our fireworks factory, but the walls of the factory are made of cardboard and you are allowed to smoke. - AnonymousNever go to a doctor whose office plants have died. - Erma Bombeck (February 21, 1927 – April 22, 1996)
Questioning Benevolence
Beware of people merely trying to build rapport and reciprocity to bridge into your mind to anchor on what they want to get out of you. Beware the nice guy delusion. Usually we warned against well-wishers who do nothing but empty impotent well-wishing, but, here, we caveated on the intent of the well-doers.
This is a common way that manipulators control their victims. Through subtle acts of ingenuine and selective, or even well-crafted, generosity which includes praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), excessive apologizing, offering of money, approval, gifts, providing attention, or a a display of facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile, or open public recognition, the manipulators are working their way on positive reinforcement on their marks.
Rapport can be abused to hijack trust. When the mark feels more comfortable, gullibility increases. If nice guy is agreeing to everything you say, whether or not it makes sense, be on the watch out. Do not allow yourself to fall to prey
It allows the other to build a psychological bridge to you.
Beware the stranger bearing gifts. When someone gives us something, we often feel indebted to that person. When you are presented with a request, ensure that you are not acting out of a sense of obligation. This rule can take many forms — it’s not limited to physical gifts.
This is the reason why in many articles, we warned about the dangers of fake-feel-good.
Puss-in-Boots invites for help with the promise of gain to those who taste riches and yet desires incessantly. He plays to the vanity and insecurity of the giants. — Ursa
1. Is the person only a lip-servicing well-wisher or a proactive well-doer?
2. Is there an ulterior motive? Is the rapport and cordiality genuine and unconditional? Will it be used as a hook or emotional hijack later?
3. Is this bond a mere design of an exploitable psychological bridge?
4. Is the favor asked - a trojan request to anchor a first innocuous emotional commitment as a form of tactical pre-suasion?** This may be a constructive bridge between people, but the intent is to be examined and audited. e.g. A small gift makes people want to reciprocate. People who received a small 'no-strings-attached gift' from a stranger were 2x as likely to buy raffle tickets from him than those who were just pitched on raffle tickets.5. Conducting his benevolence vulnerability assessment, can the person be sentimentally hijacked into emotional paralysis or bias? Does his sensibility gets override by sense because of pre-conditioned, ill-placed affinity?
You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. — Plato (circa. 428/427 or 424/423 B.C.E. — circa. 347/347 B.C.E.)
Trust Oracles: Controllability
Proactive Trust and Trustworthiness
There’s something you cannot attest (validation and verification) in law, even when circumstantial evidence is present — human intentions.
Trust is a currency, however, the valuation is not well-examined and understood. What is the meaning and worth of being nice and friendly when the character is not honest, trustworthy and sincere as advertised or presented?
It is obvious that we cannot wage trust by surface value. Hence, our own perspicacity comes into play. We have to constantly question the confidence and trust we vest in our own judgement, and removed the very bug that create the dangerous fallacy for misjudgment — egoism and bias of pride, prejudice and parochial imprinting preferences. We are our own cause.
What is less obvious is our own proactive trust building. We have to make those friends trustworthy, don’t just on finding trustworthy people. That is why we said ‘make’ friends, we don’t just try to ‘find’ them. It is mandated to make them trustworthy before they are cleared to be trusted and entrusted.
Trust can be misused and abused, not just misplaced. If you want to know a person, time is just 1 factor, events are more important. You can know a person from events, not length of time. Events are not just to put people to the crucible for test, but also for cultivation of becoming trustworthy. People can become rightful to the trust in terms of the 4 qualities and, therein, forge righteousness through experiencing character shaping events.
People have to feel safe to be truthful. They must be given the confidence to be supported, and not be ostracized in their most pristine candor, or they will cheat and lie for self-preservation. If reward for trustworthiness is hard, and penalty for pretense and duplicity is severe, people will tend to put themselves to align with integrity and honor. Help them build their trustworthiness and earn their trust.
Everyone must learn good decision making. People have to learn to cooperate and complement even if they do not agree among themselves. They have to put their ego aside and take turns to try things out. No one should hoard anything. Everyone and everything has to have their own time. Trust and being made trustworthy are part of the homeostasis. This should be part of the design.
路遥知马力, 日久见人心 (lù yáo zhī mǎlì, rì jiǔ jiàn rénxīn) : “the long road test the strength of the horse, the enduring of times test the heart of a person”"""
Always beware of hearts in different context settings and climate. - Re: Zhang Wenyuan’s and Yan Poxi’s betrayal of Song Jiang, 2020-06.23
"""
Learning to Trust
Trust can be a gift. Fundamentally, it is a key to give access to certain observability and control. It is also a trade with protocols with terms and conditions of ownership and use, and it becomes a currency that defines functional relation between people and things. Even for machines to trust the integrity and authenticity of an operational membership, this foundational element must first be waged. Only with that assurance can be established for authentication, access, authorization, audit and attestation. The protocol to meet the assurance criteria requirements assertion mechanisms. This is true for either human or machines.
Constructing Trustworthiness
The strength of the person determines his true worth of trustworthiness. Aside creating events for observation as part of evidence building for trust assessment, we can create events to build the person’s strength to enhance his trustworthiness.
Wargame With Moat Projects
Before deploying to real mission critical work, emulate a similar situation to observe and condition the candidates. As sessions are conducted, the subjects will adapt themselves in the given situation management. However, the situation must not be clearly simulated as there is no stakes related, and people will only simulate their best behavior. This is the reason why Navy Seals created the Hell Week Training.
Within the grueling situations, the candidates must demonstrate and prove their worth through rectitude and fortitude. The candidates must remain their courage, integrity, ability and benevolence within the exacting hardship. Where they break is the same limit you can trust them. Subject yourself to the same test if you are part of the element to be deployed for the targeted objective. Success or failure depends on how well these crucibles are attested, and used for conditioning and preparation.
The battlefield is a subject of life and death. You shall test, test and test again. — Grandfather to Ursa
Life is a relentless battlefield. Never be unprepared. — Father to Ursa
Traitors
Social vermin take advantage of our vulnerabilities and vulnerable moments. As humans, we cannot be on guard 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Traitors comes in all forms.
Disloyal Agents
People frequently authorize others to act on their behalf. Sometimes this is informal, e.g. spouses ask each other to do their online banking. Sometimes it is legally necessary, e.g. guardians must have the legal authority to do their job of protecting incapacitated or underage entrustees. Other times it is unavoidable, e.g. entities such as corporations only act by and through human delegates. Whenever an agent is authorized to take some action affecting a service, the agent may exceed its authority and engage in unauthorized transactions or actions.
Impersonators
Transgression can happen under an impersonation of an authorized agent or user by an unauthorized one. Any credentials associated with an authorized user are themselves attack targets. MFA (Multiple Factor Authentication)and other authentication protocols are designed to furnish additional evidence that a user is who they say they are, but are necessarily less than completely reliable or complete. When there are certain under-addressed or undefined conditions, malpractice or malfeasance can still happen.
Counterfeit and confusion in the factum is another form. Parties can be presented with the authorization for a transaction and misled into believing they are taking some other action when they authorize it. Attacks of this sort range from swapping the pages of a paper contract to simulating technological elements or devices.
Fraudsters
This is also known as `Feign in the Inducement`. Parties are sometimes tricked into entering into transactions under falsehoods. For example, a fraudster might pass off a counterfeit commodity, or perform an illegal re-sale of stolen goods. While the buyer’s payment to the seller is genuine, the overall deal is fraudulent.
If the legal validity (including its jurisdiction) of the transaction is determined by external facts that are not directly observable by the service’s participants, it cannot be controlled and intervened by internal mechanisms, but it can be assisted if there are provisions in terms of protocol of technological mechanisms.
Fraudsters can also induce victims into mistakes by ‘assisting blunders’. Phishing and related attacks induce users to engage in intended transactions with unintended parties, and sometimes parties make incorrect transactions even when there is no malicious intent, e.g., using the wrong recipient account number in an electronic transfer. Some of these issues can be mitigated with good UI (User Interface) designs and identity management, but some mistakes, such as making an incorrectly large transfer by fat-fingering an extra zero, can never be a possible blunder. In such, it may be hard to pinpoint if the incident is of malice or just fallacy or flaw.
1. The Art Of Organization Orchestration And Orientation Of A Group
2. Things We Learned From People On The 100 Day Game
3. Some Ugly Truths No One Wants To Talk About
4. My Mother Taught Me The 2 Reasons-Why We Should Have Hope In People
5. How To Trust Someone
6. The Human Story: Mores, Morale, Motif, Motive and Motivation
7. Engage
8. To Truly Know A Person, You Need A Heart-To-Heart Talk
9. The Decision To Trust And Entrust