2
Keywords Trust • Cloud computing • Trust building • Trust repair
• Assurance • Accountability
1.1
IntroductIon
Trust. A word that, while commonly used, is a complex concept that
means different things to different people in different contexts. Technology
is no different. “We don’t trust the cloud” is a common phrase used to
describe consumer or industry reluctance to adopt cloud computing. You
will find it, or wording to the same effect, in numerous scholarly studies,
industry surveys, and media, new and old. No matter what part of the
economy, society, or world that you are in, you can find a report or survey
suggesting that significant proportions of the public, businesses of all
sizes, and the public sector do not or should not trust the cloud. Similarly,
there are a myriad of, often conflicting, proposals and ‘solutions’ for overcoming trust issues in cloud computing. These include greater regulation,
increased certification, stronger security, anonymity, trust by design, privacy by design, and so on. Indeed the importance of establishing trust in
the cloud has been highlighted time and time again both in industry and
academic discourse, with trust heralded as a solution to ease any concerns
related to privacy and security on the cloud.
The objective of this book is to make some progress in teasing out what
trust means in the context of cloud computing through a variety of
lenses—psychology, law, ethics, information systems, and computing. The
remainder of this chapter briefly introduces the trust literature including
definitions and antecedents of trust. Next, we provide an overview of
cloud computing and some of the reported trust-related barriers to cloud
adoption and proposed solutions. Finally, we present a high-level framework for exploring assurance and accountability in the cloud.
1.2 trust
Trust is generally defined as a willingness to accept vulnerability based on
positive expectations of another party (Rousseau et al. 1998). This definition has two critical elements—first, the psychological state of willingness
to be vulnerable which represents a volitional choice or decision (van der
Werff et al. 2019a). Second, there are positive expectations of another
T. LYNN ET AL.
Keywords Trust • Cloud computing • Trust building • Trust repair
• Assurance • Accountability
1.1
IntroductIon
Trust. A word that, while commonly used, is a complex concept that
means different things to different people in different contexts. Technology
is no different. “We don’t trust the cloud” is a common phrase used to
describe consumer or industry reluctance to adopt cloud computing. You
will find it, or wording to the same effect, in numerous scholarly studies,
industry surveys, and media, new and old. No matter what part of the
economy, society, or world that you are in, you can find a report or survey
suggesting that significant proportions of the public, businesses of all
sizes, and the public sector do not or should not trust the cloud. Similarly,
there are a myriad of, often conflicting, proposals and ‘solutions’ for overcoming trust issues in cloud computing. These include greater regulation,
increased certification, stronger security, anonymity, trust by design, privacy by design, and so on. Indeed the importance of establishing trust in
the cloud has been highlighted time and time again both in industry and
academic discourse, with trust heralded as a solution to ease any concerns
related to privacy and security on the cloud.
The objective of this book is to make some progress in teasing out what
trust means in the context of cloud computing through a variety of
lenses—psychology, law, ethics, information systems, and computing. The
remainder of this chapter briefly introduces the trust literature including
definitions and antecedents of trust. Next, we provide an overview of
cloud computing and some of the reported trust-related barriers to cloud
adoption and proposed solutions. Finally, we present a high-level framework for exploring assurance and accountability in the cloud.
1.2 trust
Trust is generally defined as a willingness to accept vulnerability based on
positive expectations of another party (Rousseau et al. 1998). This definition has two critical elements—first, the psychological state of willingness
to be vulnerable which represents a volitional choice or decision (van der
Werff et al. 2019a). Second, there are positive expectations of another
T. LYNN ET AL.