4 ms·
As long as trust exists, fraud will exist. The only way to eliminate fraud is to eliminate trust, and trustless societies are pretty dystopian.
by umvi 5y ago
As long as trust exists, fraud will exist. The only way to eliminate fraud is to eliminate trust, and trustless societies are pretty dystopian.
- f3rnando 5y ago¬¬
- scotty79 5y agoI'm not sure. Reducing necessity for trust is a worthwhile goal. It's wonderful to not have to trust too much. Instead to rely on evidence and have a contingency if things go horribly south.
- lbriner 5y agoIs that possible? Every system we use has to be trusted at some point. I don't trust the internet so I use https but that is only really saying that I trust the IETF or my certificate provider and I (personally) have no realistic way of knowing whether either is trustworthy. Did the IETF miss a vulnerability when they inveted the protocol? Was there someone on the team planted by the NSA? Do the cert authorities provide the means to hack my data in some way? I don't think they do but that is because I trust them that I don't think it would be in their interest to do this and I think that if the IETF messed with the protocol, someone would have noticed but we have seen OpenSSL bugs that have sat there for years because it was too complex for most people to understand. It just sounds like turtles all the way down because ultimately you have to trust someone or something even if it is just time and experience.
- rocqua 5y agoReducing the amount of places where you have to trust, and then demanding more transparency from those places helps create a society where less trust is needed, and fraud has fewer options.
- fsflover 5y agoSee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency.
- konschubert 5y agoTrust is great and it's enabled by reputation systems. https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/
- CharlesW 5y agoI'd characterize it this way: Reputation systems don't enable trust, but are an attempt to algorithmically quantify it. To paraphrase the old aphorism, all reputation models are wrong but some are useful. Unfortunately, they're inevitably abused by the untrustworthy that they're supposed to filter. Madoff had increasingly-good reputation signals until he didn't.
- dgb23 5y agoIt’s still trust, just shifted to something else.
- marcosdumay 5y agoIt's actually more trust, because any bad consequence is reduced. It feels like less because it's easier to trust, but the real world impact is of the real thing, that is more. That's why an effective police, punishment for business crimes, and law enforcement even when the person moves into a different place are important. A more trusting society is a happier and richer one, so we should make it easy to trust.
- genedan 5y agoIn my experience working in an insurance claims department, we overlooked a lot of fraud, intentionally. Usually, only the large, extremely obvious cases with plenty of evidence were pursued. I believe a lot of the soft fraud involving slightly inflated claims went undetected. Part of this is because you have to pay the salaries of the investigators, so there is a cost of detection. It's not worth recovering an amount that is less than the cost of an investigation. Secondly, a company will lose customers if it has a reputation for having too many false positives or a default stance of mistrust of their policyholders.