The internet was not built with trust-building in mind, and about a quarter of these experts predicted that there are a number of threats that will be hard to defeat. Some spoke of the role of criminals and trolls. Others referred to corporate behavior and governments\u2019 motives leading to the privacy invasions, surveillance and data breaches that make the public uneasy about online transactions.<\/p>\n\n
The next billions connected will be potentially the more exposed to new generations of digital crooks that have on them dozen of years of experience.Giacomo Mazzone<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
[bad actors]<\/p>\n\n\n
Some pointed out that as internet usage continues to rise \u2013 with hundreds of millions more people, maybe more than a billion, likely to join those already online by 2026 \u2013 interactions will increase, hiking the likely chance of more criminal exploits and more potential for institutional incursions impacting more people, thus less trust. An anonymous<\/strong> senior researcher who works for Microsoft<\/strong> observed, \u201cAs more and more people come online, that\u2019s more and more targets for scammers. Since reaching people online is so easy, the scammers\u2019 negative actions are magnified.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous principal engineer for an IT and network vendor and service provider <\/strong>predicted, \u201cTrust will be diminished, but I am not saying that fewer people will use the internet for shopping, work, etc. More people will be driven to use the internet and thus will have more reasons not to trust it. Until software developers stop coding vulnerabilities (e.g., buffer overflows) into the software that runs all these systems, trust won\u2019t improve. At this time, I see very little improvement or interest in improvement in industry as a whole. As more \u2018things\u2019 are connected to the internet and permeate society, it will only get worse. Yes, I\u2019m very pessimistic. At some point, society might even have to hold software developers responsible (gasp).\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Giacomo Mazzone<\/strong>, head of institutional relations at the European Broadcasting Union, wrote, \u201cIf you look at the number of phishing examples around us and at the number of victims, you can understand why and how a digital world without a digital literacy could become potentially a world more dangerous than the one we have today. The next billions connected will be potentially the more exposed to new generations of digital crooks that have on them dozen of years of experience.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Paul Dourish<\/strong>, chancellor\u2019s professor of informatics at the University of California, Irvine, wrote, \u201cThe primarily thing that banks, governments and corporations need to do in order to be trusted is to act in a trustworthy manner. Where people don\u2019t trust online action, it is not least because corporate actors have not been good custodians of user data, etc. The use of online services will increase because it will become increasingly difficult to opt out, but that doesn\u2019t mean that those services will be trusted unless entirely new attitudes toward governance and responsibility emerge.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Christopher Owens<\/strong>, a community college professor, observed, \u201cThis is a paradox. Trust will be diminished, but the use of online banking and shopping will continue to increase. As online shopping and banking becomes more and more commonplace, just about everyone who uses these services will at one point or another \u2026 have to deal with some act of fraud or identity theft.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous senior lecturer in computing based in Australia<\/strong> said, \u201cI can see trust continuing to diminish as more people get bitten by scams. While one of my students \u2013 who may have invented bitcoin \u2013 built safeguards into its blockchains, it is easy for those who have little faith in science and mathematics to come to distrust them. Politics is influenced by the trust placed in commentators who admit privately that they don\u2019t tell the truth because it doesn\u2019t sell.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
David Banks<\/strong>, co-editor of Cyborgology, said, \u201cTrust in institutions is at an all-time low, and it does not seem clear to me at all that digital technologies will improve this situation. Trust is a social problem and overall degrees of trust in institutions will only change to the degree that technologies present a kind of stability or some other version of trustworthiness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Christopher Wilkinson<\/strong>,<\/strong> a retired senior European Union official, commented, \u201cTrust is already challenged. The technologies of creating and maintaining trust are still too complicated for the average use \u2013 e.g., I do not know how to encrypt my email.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Shawn Otto<\/strong>, organizational executive, speaker and writer with ScienceDebate.org, commented, \u201cWe are still at the early stages in understanding the vulnerabilities created by bringing the world online. As they become more clear via painful experience, trust will likely diminish somewhat.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Matt Bates<\/strong>, programmer and concept artist at Jambeeno Ltd., commented, \u201cIt will remain mostly the same but if it trends either direction it will probably be diminished simply because of two effects: 1) People always discount positive effects on their lives and overestimate negative effects; and 2) Online activity can have large effects on one\u2019s life, both positive and negative. Shopping (economic activity) will probably precipitate the most drastic shift in many peoples\u2019 online lives as inevitable security breaches continue to negatively affect millions (eventually billions) of lives. People will dramatically discount the untold hundreds or thousands of remarkably easy transactions they\u2019ve made in the past and will focus heavily on the one time their credit information was swiped by unsavory criminals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Many respondents addressed identity issues when predicting a diminishment of trust.<\/p>\n\n
Dan Lynch<\/strong>, internet pioneer developer and founder of CyberCash, noted, \u201cThere are far too many ways to cloak true identity, thus trust will be a big problem online.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Erik Anderson<\/strong>, a respondent who did not provide any other identifying details, wrote, \u201cWith identity comes trust. You can\u2019t solve online trust issues without identity. However, with more online identity come privacy issues. The technology exists to solve these problems but it has been relatively unused and undeployed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
[personal identity]<\/p>\n\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> commented, \u201cUntil we have identities that cannot be \u2018stolen\u2019 online we will only have more problems leading to less trust. Maybe blockchain could do it, but the resistance from the large existing financial institutions will be too large for a new normal to develop until we have fundamental change in our economic structure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Another anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> observed, \u201cFlawless identity verification is the holy grail of online services. Until that exists, there will be \u2018mattress stuffers\u2019 who do not trust online services for banking, health care, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\u201cHealthy distrust\u201d was a quality held in high regard by several respondents. Among comments along these lines mentioned earlier in this report were those by Jonathan Grudin<\/strong><\/a>, principal researcher at Microsoft, and David Karger<\/strong><\/a>, professor of computer science at MIT.<\/p>\n\n
Mark Richmond<\/strong>, systems engineer for a major branch of the U.S. government, wrote, \u201cAs stories of exploits and losses continue to add up, the general sense of trust in technology enjoyed by the mostly young will gradually diminish. The eventual state of healthy distrust will probably be a positive in the long run.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
And Chris Zwemke<\/strong>, a web developer, said, \u201cTrust will smartly decline. Distrust in systems is healthy. Activity might increase, but trust will not, and more double-checking will occur.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Arthur Kover<\/strong>, a respondent who shared no identifying background, said, \u201cOverall, trust will diminish. But people will cluster into \u2018safe\u2019 arenas, rarely venturing into the open, unsafe ones.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Dave Robertson<\/strong>, a professor of political science, commented, \u201cTrust is not too good as it is. If there are terrorist or criminal efforts that more seriously disrupt the internet \u2013 as I\u2019d guess is likely \u2013 trust will diminish.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Janet Salmons<\/strong>, independent scholar, writer and educator at Vision2Lead, wrote, \u201cThose of us who care about the internet \u2013 who feel the social, cultural and intellectual values are immense \u2013 need to step up and advocate for practices that will increase public trust. At this time, as someone who works and manages most areas of life with some computer-mediated process, I am looking for ways to limit online transactions. My trust was reduced by identity theft and hacking incidents, so I think twice before I do anything involving personal information. Alas, digital literacy has not progressed (users aren\u2019t necessary broadly literate) and many people lack basic knowledge about online safety.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Subtheme: Corporate and government interests are not motivated to improve trust or protect the public<\/h4>\n\n
A number of participants in this canvassing noted that corporate motivations fall generally under the category of earning profits in order to fulfill fiduciary responsibilities to investors and keep stock prices soaring, causing them to fall far short of serving the public\u2019s best interests when it comes to keeping personal information private and anticipating and preventing criminal acts and other exploitation of their technologies. Some say regulation will be required to remedy the situation, but will government provide it if it also benefits from exploitable weaknesses itself? Most of the people expressing opinions in this category preferred to remain anonymous in answering this survey.<\/p>\n\n
One anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> commented, \u201cThe Snowden revelations unveiled the ways in which data collection online leaves people susceptible to government surveillance. But trust in commercial systems is not only open to government snooping but also vulnerable, as it is unregulated data in the hands of private corporations. A few data leaks from now, no one will want to buy anything on their phones.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Another anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> said, \u201cThe internet is a security s*** show. Everyone knows that. The NSA is logging this right now. I\u2019m sure three Russian mobs already have all my passwords.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> said, \u201cThere is no legal incentive at all to get this right. Absent the return of strict liability for anyone who holds data beyond the session, there will never be adequate incentives to protect data. And while some portion of the population is always too clueless to care, it will not be enough to support the current laissez-faire system. Absent strong regulation, the opportunity to make the internet more useful will be lost.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
As people get more experiences of online hacks, identity thefts and awareness of massive state surveillance, their trust in online interactions will wane. The only way I can see institutions countering this is if they provide guarantees against dangers.Anonymous respondent<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> warned, \u201cWe are **** slaves. Open your **** eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Amanda Licastro<\/strong>, an assistant professor of digital rhetoric, wrote, \u201cEducators and activists are calling for an increased awareness of how our data is collected, monitored and monetized. As awareness spreads I predict a backlash against wearable devices, third-party data-sharing and camera surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent<\/strong> commented, \u201cSecurity breaches will primarily impact economic activity, but potentially could have catastrophic effects on health care. Political and civic as well as cultural life will be primarily impacted by a better awareness that all online interactions are being monitored by one entity or another, and the promises of anonymization of that data are disingenuous.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
[Digital Rights Management]<\/p>\n\n\n
An anonymous faculty member at a public research university<\/strong> said, \u201cWhether people do trust those institutions depends on how the institutions behave. As people get more experiences of online hacks, identity thefts and awareness of massive state surveillance, their trust in online interactions will wane. The only way I can see institutions countering this is if they provide guarantees against dangers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> noted, \u201cThe increasing probability of unsuccessful outcomes (e.g., due to overtly malicious\/criminal activity) will probably have less impact on the decline in trust than the increasing non-consensual but unavoidable e-commerce-related \u2018transactional overhead\u2019 (e.g., mandatory \u2018opt-in\u2019 adver-surveillance, etc.).\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> principal architect<\/strong> said, \u201cSmartphones today do not provide adequate protections to rein in surveillance capitalism or totalitarian government. These limitations will become more apparent with time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> said, \u201cTwo ways that trust will be diminished: 1) the security\/privacy of the technology (hacking, NSA surveillance, data-mining policies of companies); 2) the realization (by a number of people) that the lack of human interaction leaves them felling lonely and disconnected from community and society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Another anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> wrote, \u201cAs knowledge that the internet is run by profiteers, and the system is gamed, and that it truly is \u2013 as the Pentagon has designated \u2013 a \u2018combat zone\u2019 in need of high-end security tactics that are beyond the capability of most people to comprehend, more and more people will distrust everything about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> wrote, \u201cThere will be a backlash. We\u2019ve seen an increasing threat to our digital information. This includes financial and health care. Lord knows where other data resides behind the cloak of government monitoring. Freedoms are becoming restricted. Look, for example, at any effort to remove your name from the government\u2019s no-fly list or the assertion that you can be forced to use your fingerprint by law enforcement to access the data on your phone.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> noted, \u201cTrust in these services will diminish dramatically until either a large segment of the world population stops using certain services or a catastrophic hack adversely impacts a large swath of the population. After that, a series of lawsuits will decimate those service providers and lead to an overhaul in how online services provide security services for the data being shared. As more and more services appear online, there is an ever-growing loss of control of personal information. The companies offering or moving services online appear to be less willing to clearly articulate how they use or protect personal information. Additionally, current history has shown that services that house personal information are ripe targets for hackers and thieves.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous principal research programmer<\/strong> said, \u201cThe threats associated with the massive amounts of data collected and used by commercial aspects of the internet are becoming more obvious with each new privacy breach. As more people are forced to confront the hidden costs of these breaches, the conveniences afforded by online systems may become less palatable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> commented, \u201cI personally find myself being drawn out of the digital realm, not further into it. I don\u2019t trust corporate America\u2019s values, especially those whose products are digitally based (Apple, Google, Facebook, and the huge list goes on). I don\u2019t trust government as it gobbles up every bit of our data it possibly can. If I can incorrectly be detained as a suspected terrorist upon returning home to the U.S., and I was, I simply don\u2019t trust these systems. They fail to work properly. They can too easily be manipulated for nefarious intent or to enrich the \u00fcber-wealthy. I mean, are we really<\/em> going to trust democratic elections to digital machines? Really? I\u2019ve had to replace my credit cards four times over the past six years because of data breaches. I have loved and depended on my digital tools for just about everything. But I find myself exploring ways to stop using them because of a lack of trust and privacy. And I don\u2019t have anything really to hide! Damn, I even pay my taxes. Online.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> director of research at a European futures organization<\/strong> said, \u201cSecurity and privacy concerns aren\u2019t being addressed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> wrote, \u201cOur government is actively sabotaging the security of these systems and very few companies are powerful or wealthy enough to stand up against that pressure. We\u2019re going to see less security, not more, as states feel pressured by the terrorism boogeyman to gather as much info as possible, leaving back doors open for hackers. It also seems like there\u2019s very little being done to protect people from identity theft and online scams targeting older people. As people hear more and more about these events happening, they\u2019ll lose trust in online shopping and online social interaction out of fear.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Revolution? Some respondents predict the public\u2019s dismay and distrust will lead to it.<\/p>\n\n
[that]<\/p>\n\n\n
An anonymous political science professor<\/strong> replied, \u201cTrust in major institutions (e.g., firms, governments) is declining across the globe. Trust in \u2018imagined communities\u2019 seems to be on the rise. The internet seems to be becoming more a vehicle of established, monied extractive interests. I believe that anti-globalization is our (near) future, and the internet will come to be seen as globalization\u2019s chief vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Anonymous respondents<\/strong> also commented:<\/p>\n\n
\n
- \u201cGreed and the quest for more market share will drive ever-more-intrusive strategies.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cUnless business and government find effective ways to halt the growth of hacking, using the internet for financial transactions will become riskier and eventually reduce use of this method of communication and transacting business.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cMy transactions should not be anyone\u2019s data.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cIf organizations like the NSA and the FBI in the U.S. are more concerned with hacking foreigners than they are with defending America\u2019s infrastructure, and other organizations overseas follow their approach as an example of \u2018best practice,\u2019 then the number and severity of data breaches will only increase.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cIt seems likely that we will experience more data-related scandals that might lead to diminishing trust.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cThe internet has become more and more centralized and commercialized. People already mistrust it much more than they did 10 years ago, and that will continue.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cMore people are likely to be skeptical of commercial services and their ownership of user data. This will particularly affect economic transactions, including banking.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cI hope trust in these systems will be reduced \u2013 it\u2019s about intent in the implementation of these systems.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
Subtheme: Criminal exploits will diminish trust<\/h4>\n\n
A number of respondents observed that more crime and other uninvited and unwanted manipulations of networked systems will emerge as more people get online and more important transactions are conducted there. Many said they expect such attacks to impact trust. An anonymous<\/strong> respondent<\/strong> warned, \u201cExpect more-spectacular crimes.\u201d Another wrote, \u201cThe potential for fraud, misinformation and deception online are tremendous.\u201d And another wrote, \u201cInevitably, there will be increased hacking and identify theft.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
The opportunities for mischief are enormous.Joel Barker<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n