Trust Model Sample Clauses

Trust Model. 6.1 The Role of Privacy

Trust Model. 7.5.1 Background to trust models D4.1 adopted a very specific trust model, a trust model that places greater dependency on a single entity like a community operator, but offered less privacy control to the individual. This ‗high trust‘ trust model does not resonate well with users who are concerned about current privacy practices that social networks have adopted, although it remains the trust model that we see in our reference Angling and Gaming communities. For those members who do worry about the risks of using a community, a range of options are possible, essentially where members take greater or lesser control of the situation according to their personal beliefs. Other members will look for assurances from the community operator. We showed that there is a spectrum of possibilities, from high trust (low personal control) to low trust (high personal control), as the following diagram shows. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the community that concerns PICOS, and for the first set of prototypes we used a trust model that is exemplified by the angling community. This community is particularly interesting because it possesses the following characteristics: It has a well defined purpose Members have a shared interest and shared values It has a co-ordinating entity that shares the same values It existed in the real world Compared to a social network community, where trust is high and personal control low, the angling community looks for a balance of increased personal control and reduced need for trust. By contrast, a highly distrusting member would, compared with today‘s standard community offering, look for much greater control and reduced need to trust. Solving the trust challenge that we see in social networks requires a different approach. Essentially, the trust placed in the community operator is removed and distributed to one or more trust domains in a way that is acceptable to the membership. In addition, sensitive process that might otherwise be carried out within the community is now performed in an isolated (probably local, e.g. smart phone) environment that the member trusts. Addressing trust concerns through enhanced isolation is one approach to dealing with privacy concerns. In essence, it is a strategy of data minimisation, where only essential information is ever revealed to another party. However, communities basically exist to share information, some of which is personal. To deny the community this opportunity would indeed address p...

Trust Model. ‌ Girault [27] shows that public key cryptosystems essentially can be classified into three different trust levels depending on the trust assumption of the trusted third party (TTP). Due to the escrow property, it’s easy to see that the trust level of CL-PKC is greater than that of ID-PKC. In PKI, whenever a CA tries forge a certificate, it can be identified by the fact that there are two working certificates for the same user. In CL-PKC, however, the TTP will still be able to replace public keys without the entities realizing that these are invalid. To address this and achieve trust level 3, CL-PKC also proposes an alternative key generation technique that binds a user identifier to a public key. Thus, the corresponding private key will be bound to the public key, and if the KGC replaces a public key it will easily be noticed. A minor drawback of this technique is that the public key must be generated before the private key is issued by the KGC.