Can We Make Sense of the Notion of Trustworthy Technology?

Abstract

In this paper we raise the question whether technological artifacts can properly speaking be trusted or said to be trustworthy. First, we set out some prevalent accounts of trust and trustworthiness and explain how they compare with the engineer's notion of reliability. We distinguish between pure rational-choice accounts of trust, which do not differ in principle from mere judgments of reliability, and what we call "motivation-attributing" accounts of trust, which attribute specific motivations to trustworthy entities. Then we consider some examples of technological entities that are, at first glance, best suited to serve as the objects of trust: intelligent systems that interact with users, and complex socio-technical systems. We conclude that the motivation-attributing concept of trustworthiness cannot be straightforwardly applied to these entities. Any applicable notion of trustworthy technology would have to depart significantly from the full-blown notion of trustworthiness associated with interpersonal trust.

Examining Trust as a Key Determinant of eHealth Adoption in Malawi

“…For instance, Philip J. Nickel et al (2010) argue that since the factors that motivation-attributing accounts of trust present are qualities which only humans generally hold, it is therefore sensible to determine that trustworthiness does not genuinely apply to technology; but rather that technology is reliable (Philip J. Nickel, 2010).…”

“…Carter and Belanger (2005) also stress that trust in technology falls between two facts which are trust of service provider and trust of the mechanism with which the service is made available which is the internet (Belanger, 2005). Nickel et al (2010) share the same sentiments and state that when it comes socio-technical systems involving control by humans, it is not sensible that trust placed on those controlling the system should be directly placed on the entire system (Philip J. Nickel, 2010).…”

“…Nickel et al (2010) share the same sentiments and state that when it comes socio-technical systems involving control by humans, it is not sensible that trust placed on those controlling the system should be directly placed on the entire system (Philip J. Nickel, 2010).…”

Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design

“…• Anthropocentrism: People often speak about trust in technology or in specific artifacts, but it seems inappropriate to take a rich affective or moral attitude toward a mere thing, rather than a person (Nickel et al 2010) because this is a kind of pathetic fallacy, anthropomorphizing an object. • Evidence for Trust: Evidence is highly relevant when figuring out whether to rely on another person or entity (e.g., a computer system or another system user), particularly when the stakes are high.…”

“…Broader, non-anthropocentric views of trust that allow for trust in technological artifacts do not have this problem, but they encounter the criticism that trust in technology is indistinguishable from mere reliance or judgments of reliability (Nickel et al 2010). To some extent, this criticism can be met by giving an account of the moral, affective, or emotional aspects of trust in artifacts and technological systems, such as the frustration one feels when an artifact or system breaks down.…”