Information and Identity Governance – Trust Systems

Lack of trust

Surveys of who the public trusts with their information tend to show that, except for banks and medical practitioners, most of those who expect their customers, clients, subjects or taxpayers to use their identity systems are not themselves trusted.

They can only be confident in the accuracy of the data supplied if it is easier and in the interests of the customer to tell the truth and report changes of circumstance - rather than give the easiest fiction that will secure the response desired. Hence the spectacular ”error” rates on systems when the honest answer is “can’t remember”, “don’t know” or “why should I tell you?”

For identity systems to have real value, there is a need to understand the levels of Trust, and to ensure they are adequate for the purpose. Some needs may only require minimal trust, and it would not be economic to expect more. Others may require high levels of trust.


Questions to consider...

  • 26. What is the current state of trust and trust ecosystems, e.g. evidence of who trusts who with their identity and/or personal information and the factors that determine this?
  • 27. What determines the ability to assert levels of trust, must have services which is better carrot or stick (i.e. coercion, good will, image, track record etc.?
  • 28. The relationship, or lack of it, between trust and identity. How many relationships do not need identity, only the assurance that a transaction will be honoured (e.g. an irrevocable payment in return for guaranteed delivery i.e. cash or perhaps using a mutually trusted third-party to underwrite the transaction)?
  • 29. How trust can be improved (e.g. the use of end-over-end encryption linked to trusted programme modules in PC or phone or use of one way links)?
  • 30. What product and service benefits could improved levels of trust enable and facilitate and who would be willing, in consequence, to fund these – and how?