For proper implementation of digital contact tracing technologies for fighting against SARS-CoV-2, participants' privacy vulnerability and the uncertainty from the relevant institutions' side could be seen as two core elements that should be dealt with, among others. In this paper, we propose to understand the current approaches for preserving privacy, referred to as privacy by legislation and privacy by technological design, as distrusting strategies that primarily work to reduce participants' vulnerability by specifying and implementing privacy standards related to this digital solution. We point out that mere distrusting strategies are insufficient for the ethically appropriate development of this digital solution, nor can they eliminate the need for institutional trust that plays an essential role in fostering voluntary support for this solution. To reach well-grounded trust in both an ethical and epistemological sense, we argue that trust in institutions concerning personal data protection in the case of digital contact tracing ought to be built on the relevant institutions' and individuals' goodwill towards the public and their competence in improving the actual effectiveness of this solution. We conclude by clarifying three dimensions, including the purpose, procedure, and outcome, where the relevant trustees can work to signal and justify their intentions and increase their trustworthiness via an effective communication strategy. Given the complementary qualities shown by the distrusting and trusting strategies, a combined strategy including both sorts seems closer to what we expect from the responsible implementation of this digital solution, which could also improve the effectiveness of this institutional response.@en

This paper argues that the widespread belief that interactions between blockchains and their users are trust-free is inaccurate and misleading, since this belief not only overlooks the vital role played by trust in the lack of knowledge and control but also conceals the moral and normative relevance of relying on blockchain applications. The paper reaches this argument by providing a close philosophical examination of the concept referred to as trust in blockchain technology, clarifying the trustor group, the structure, and the normatively loaded nature of this trust relation. The paper ends by critically reflecting on two of the most promising values (decentralization and transparency) that can invite users’ trust in blockchain technology, arguing that there is a tension between the pressing values that are intended to be achieved by developers and the predicament situations caused by current blockchain implementations.@en

In the past decade, rapid shifting and evolving technological systems that take trust as part of the design objective (call such systems “trust-inviting systems”) have incredibly transformed the way we interact with others. Think of reputation-based platforms mediating interactions between strangers and other digital services provided by institutions, as well as blockchain systems, which work to shape, respectively, our trust relations with individuals, institutions, and technologies. However, the ways these systems use to facilitate trust are not always justifiable and can lead to negative moral and social consequences if certain parts of the systems are shown to be flawed. By reflecting on several present cases of trust-inviting systems that are experiencing great tension of trust, this thesis argues that trust-inviting systems essentially attempt to interpret, translate, and ultimately institutionalize the idea of trustworthiness in given contexts. However, the ways that trust-inviting systems are using to institutionalize the characteristics of trustworthy persons, institutions, and technologies should not be accepted without scrutiny. For each case analysed here, a discrepancy between the intention to improve trust and trustworthiness and the means that are adopted to facilitate them is shown. Such cleavage is argued to be primarily caused by flawed understanding of the trust concepts and the resulting ill-suited design choices, as well as problems emerged from the implementation process. These issues are proposed to be ameliorated by a recalibration of the understanding of the trust concepts, which has the potential for remedying shortcomings of the current design and development of the systems with forward-looking strategies taking into account a wide range of societal needs, values, and technical properties. In a word, it is argued that trust-inviting digital systems should be designed, developed, and deployed in ways that are aligned with the essence of the trust relation in context, in order to achieve proper trust and trustworthy systems. As such, the pitfalls identified in each case are able to be used as perspectives contributing to building affordances that foster warranted trust and foreclosing affordances that would undermine warranted trust. @en

This paper proposes a novel way to understand trust in blockchain technology by analogy with trust placed in institutions. In support of the analysis, a detailed investigation of institutional trust is provided, which is then used as the basis for understanding the nature and ethical limits of blockchain trust. Two interrelated arguments are presented. First, given blockchains’ capacity for being institution-like entities by inviting expectations similar to those invited by traditional institutions, blockchain trust is argued to be best conceptualized as a specialized form of trust in institutions. Keeping only the core functionality and certain normative ideas of institutions, this technology broadens our understanding of trust by removing the need for third parties while retaining the value of trust for the trustor. Second, the paper argues that blockchains’ decentralized nature and the implications and effects of this decentralization on trust issues are double-edged. With the erasure of central points, the systems simultaneously crowd out the pivotal role played by traditional institutions and a cadre of representatives in meeting their assigned obligations and securing the functional systems’ trustworthy performances. As such, blockchain is positioned as a technology containing both disruptive features that can be embedded with meaningful normative values and inherent ethical limits that pose a direct challenge to the actual trustworthiness of blockchain implementations. Such limits are proposed to be ameliorated by facilitating a shift of responsibility to the groups of people directly associated with the engendering of trust in the blockchain context.

@en