Introduction

As the contributions to the first and last sections of this volume indicate, trust is a problem for those who build Internet services and those who are tasked with policing them. If only they had good models and even better specifications of users, use, and usage, or so they seem to say, they could build systems that would ensure and enhance the privacy, security, and safety of online services. Understandably (but perhaps not wisely), they tend to be impatient with what appears to be overly precious concept mongering and theoretical hairsplitting by those disciplines to which they look to provide these models and specifications. But perhaps an understanding of the provenance and distinctiveness of the range of models being offered might give those who wish to deploy them deeper insight into their domains of application as well as their limitations. Each is shaped by the presuppositions on which it is based and the conceptual and other choices made in its development. No one model, no individual summary of requirements can serve for all uses.

Awareness of this “conceptual archaeology” is especially important when the model's presuppositions are orthogonal to those that are conventional in the field. In such cases, it is critical to understand both why different starting points are taken and the benefits that are felt to be derived thereby. Difference is rarely an expression of simple contrariness but usually reflects deliberate choice made in the hope that things might be brought to light which otherwise are left obscure.