!!! Overview[1]
[{$pagename}], In a social [context], has several connotations. 

Definitions of [{$pagename}] typically refer to a [context] characterized by the following aspects: 
* One party ([trustor]) is willing to rely on the actions of another party ([trustee])
* the situation is directed to the future. 

!! [Security] exists to facilitate [{$pagename}] [4]
[Bruce Schneier]'s book "''[Liars and Outliers]''", goes into great detail on the [Relationship] between [{$pagename}] that Society. 

In addition, the [trustor] (voluntarily or forcedly) allows [delegation] of control over the actions performed by the [trustee]. As a consequence, the [trustor] 
* is uncertain about the outcome of the [trustee]'s actions;
* can only develop and evaluate expectations based on [evidence]. 
The uncertainty involves the [risk] of failure or harm to the [trustor] if the [trustee] will not behave as desired. Often although the [trustee] is [responsible], the [Trustor] is [Accountable]

[{$pagename}] can be attributed to [relationships] between people. It can be demonstrated that humans have a natural disposition to [{$pagename}] and to judge trustworthiness that can be traced to the neurobiological structure and activity of a human brain. Some studies indicate that [{$pagename}] can be altered e.g. by the application of oxytocin.

[{$pagename}] is also attributable to [relationships] within and between social groups (families, friends, [communities|Community of Interest], [organisations|Organizational Entity], companies, [Governments] etc.). [{$pagename}] is a popular approach to frame the dynamics of inter-group and intra-group interactions in terms of [{$pagename}].

When it comes to the [relationship] between [people|Natural Person] and technology, the attribution of [{$pagename}] is a matter of dispute. The intentional stance demonstrates that [{$pagename}] can be validly attributed to human [relationships] with complex technologies. However, rational reflection leads to the rejection of an ability to [{$pagename}] technological artefacts.

One of the key current challenges in the social sciences is to re-think how the rapid progress of technology has impacted constructs such as [{$pagename}]. This is specifically true for [information Technology] that dramatically alters causation in [Social Websites].

!! [{$pagename}] and Creation of [Wealth][3]
* Every transaction creating [wealth] first requires an affirmative decision to [{$pagename}]. 
* Building [{$pagename}] creates new [wealth]. 
* Sustaining [{$pagename}] creates recurring [wealth].
* Achieving [{$pagename}] superior to your competition achieves market dominance. 
* Leadership rises based on [{$pagename}] (or falls the absence of [{$pagename}]). 

!! Trust is...[2]
* the belief that a person or system will behave predictably, even under stress
* based on experience and/or [evidence]
* based on fundamental properties ([Digital Identity], [integrity])
* easy to lose and hard to regain

! A trusted [thing] is…[2]
* predictable, even under stress
* trusted based on experience and/or [evidence]
* based on fundamental properties ([Digital Identity], [integrity])

!! The Trouble with [Trust], & the case for [Accountability] [Frameworks] for [NSTIC] [5]
In [Kaliya Hamlin] speaks as to the [The Trouble with Trust, & the case for Accountability Frameworks for NSTIC|http://www.identitywoman.net/the-trouble-with-trust-the-case-for-accountability-frameworks|target='_blank']

!! Facets Of Building [{$pagename}]
We have gathered several "Facets" for building [{$pagename}]. Although primarily gathered from the aspect of [Information Technology], we believe these are Universal.
||FACET||Description
|[Identification|Digital Identity]|Ask Who Are You?
|[Authentication]|Prove [Identification]
|[Authorization]|Are you allowed to Do this Transaction?
|[Integrity]|Is the [data] you sent the same as Was Received?
|[Confidentiality]|Did anyone else read what you sent?
|[Auditing]|Record Transaction/Communications for Audit
|[Non-Repudiation]|Can prove who sent the message?
|[Transparency]|Did a [Community of Interest] see HOW you did it?
|[Accountability]|answerability, blameworthiness, liability
|[Evidence]|Did a [Community of Interest] see you do it?
|[Reputation]|Did other [Entities|Entity] say they [Trust] you?
|[Context]|You may [{$pagename}] you at work but not in a bar
!! More Information
There might be more information for this subject on one of the following:
[{ReferringPagesPlugin before='*' after='\n' }]
----
* [#1] - [Trust|Wikipedia:Trust_(social_sciences)|target='_blank'] - based on data observed:2015-05-18
* [#2] - [Trust Is|https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/resource_files/C3A51E35-1A4B-B294-D002B8E3FD59ACD6/Where%20Trust%20Begins%202014-09-23.pdf|target='_blank'] - based on data observed: 2015-08-26
* [#3] - [Achieving Digital Trust: The New Rules for Business at the Speed of Light|https://www.amazon.com/Achieving-Digital-Trust-Rules-Business/dp/0996599002/|target='_blank'] - based on data observed: 2016-08-16
* [#4] - [Bruce Schneier on Trust|https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2012/02/bruce_schneier_on_tr.html|target='_blank'] - based on data observed: 2012-09-16
* [#5] - [The Trouble with Trust, & the case for Accountability Frameworks for NSTIC|http://www.identitywoman.net/the-trouble-with-trust-the-case-for-accountability-frameworks|target='_blank'] - based on data observed: 2015-09-16