Fly Faster with Digital Trust
Frequent flyers in the US have known for awhile that the Registered Traveler (RT) program, operated by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), is one good way to capture value in digital trust and “spend it” for convenience and speed. (The Registered Traveler program, and its ability to put a “price” on the value of individual identity carried in digital trust technology, is described in Volume 2, Identity Management, of the Digital Trust report series, p. 19). Personal identifying information needed to accelerate flyers through security lines at selected airports has been valued at about $100 per year by RT program vendors (plus a few dollars for government fees), and about 70,000 users have agreed.

Judging by the number of travelers signing up for the program, the trial phases of the program seem to be successful, and expansion is “in the air.” (No pun intended.) The key to success with the RT program is the ability for individual flyers to volunteer personal background data for background checking (including certain biometric data), and then present unambiguous evidence of their identity in special security screening lines established by security vendors at certain airports.  That evidence is carried in digital credentials, and depends on digital trust technology to deliver the payoff (i.e., speedy and reliable passage through security screening lines).

Competition with Digital Trust
The digital trust payoff for this business has spawned greater and greater competition among vendors who are approved to offer the RT service.  Through 2007, five vendors met TSA’s minimum criteria to offer RT services.  Four of those five were operating services using their selected digital trust mechanisms.  Unfortunately for individual flyers, each vendor has its own digital trust technology for identity evidence and credentials, although all digital trust technology used must meet certain TSA standards (compliance strikes again).  So, flyers enrolled in one approved vendor’s program (at certain airports) cannot participate in another approved vendor’s program (at other airports being serviced).  The specific technologies used to satisfy applicable standards can and do vary.  On the other hand, this is the stuff of competition.

Broadening the Business of Digital Trust in Identity
So far, Verified Identity Pass, with its program called “Clear,” is the top provider.  The others are continuing to operate their programs, but “Clear” remains the leading service.  The digital trust technology used in Clear is a smart ID card.

Yesterday, a new entrant won TSA approval to operate an RT service. Priva Technologies is entering the market with its “ClearedKey” (or just “Cleared”) service.  Priva supplies their digital trust using its Cleared Security Platform that combines a token with a fingerprint reader.  Moreover, Priva intends for “Cleared” to compete with more than just better prices.  In fact, Priva intends to offer storage for an electronic ticket, an option for electronic “coupons” for free beverages or other items that fliers may want, and perhaps even a combination with its broader retail shopping and payment solution.  Who knows?!  The same digital trust technology used to speed you through a security line at an airport might also help you to buy clothes or lunch!

“Tense” Matters
Flyers now must pay attention to the “tense” of their RT program!  Both “Clear” and “Cleared” (as well as rtGO and FlyBy) provide digital trust to deliver a payoff of convenience and speed for travelers who value such convenience enough to pay for it.  Users of any of those vendor services move quickly through a security line at an airport.  But, read the signs carefully.  Being in the “Clear” to board is not the same as being “Cleared” for takeoff, at least not as far as the digital trust technology is concerned!

The Speed of Digital Trust
Stephen M.R. Covey had it right: “Nothing is as fast as the speed of trust.” While Covey’s book, The Speed of Trust, wasn’t speaking about the kind of trust that can come from the digital enterprise itself, his reality for self trust, relationship trust and stakeholder trust is equally true for “digital trust.” That’s the conclusion of the Digital Trust report series.  And, that’s the lesson that was taught again when Geeks.com began notifying customers that their personal and financial data may have been compromised.  (See article.)

But, it wasn’t the lesson of yet another online retailer suffering a data breach.  Geeks.com was doing the right thing by notifying customers of a possible data breach.

No, the real “fast traveling news” was the hullabaloo of questions about the Hacker Safe trustmark from ScanAlert (since acquired by McAfee) that was evident on the Geeks.com Web site.  Hacker Safe was supposed to prevent such breaches!  Is claiming trust using a trustbroker like “walking on eggshells”?  Is digital trust that fragile?

Zoom Zoom
The message of an intrusion despite the Hacker Safe trustmark moved quickly, in accordance with the realities of digital trust.  Once the original disclosure became known on computerworld.com, the news was blogged and re-blogged, questioned and highlighted as fast as Web sites and RSS feeds could go.  Sites like slyck.com, DP’s security bits, techzonez.com and others quickly relayed and replayed the story.  In some cases, fuel was added to the fire of conversation when InformationWeek reported just three days later that other “Hacker Safe” sites may also have been vulnerable to cross-site scripting.

Not Humpty Dumpty
But, other realities of digital trust have also become evident.  The latest volume in the Digital Trust series, Volume 7 on Transparency and Assurance, shows that trust, including digital trust, can be both created and destroyed.  It also reveals that digital trust is a function of both competence (including the scope and execution of the digital techniques involved) and results over time (i.e., reputation).

Volume 7 examines the ways to create, grow, convey and claim digital trust.  Using trustmarks is but one.  In fact, this volume finds that there are over 200 trustmarks, each one offering their own measure of trust, and that some can be empty or even “imaginary”!  But, some deliver real results, based mainly on a combination of competence and commitment to reputation.

ScanAlert is responding to the reports, and is using (digital) trust reinforcing measures to sustain the value and effectiveness of its trustmark.  Other (real) trust brokers operate in like fashion.  The real issue beyond whether or not the Hacker Safe emblem is supposed to protect against cross-site scripting or not, or whether Hacker Safe “should” have prevented the Geeks.com data breach, is this: How do you know if digital trust is present, and how much digital trust is delivered?

How Much Does Digital Trust Weigh?
That’s the question explored in Volume 7.  Digital trust is real, and we know it works.  So how do we measure it?  How much does it “weigh” anyhow?  Take a read of volume 7. . .

We legislate, mandate and regulate a lot of online behaviors.  Perhaps one of our “favorites” (judging by the amount of discussion and reference it generates) is online privacy rights.  In the U.S., state after state has followed California’s lead for a breach notification law.  As of December 12, 2007 at least 39 states in the U.S. have enacted legislation requiring notification of security breaches involving personal information.  Proposed national legislation has already been introduced in Congress (but not yet passed).

And, the U.S. is not alone.  For example, Canada has two federal privacy laws, plus every province and territory (except Newfoundland) also contributes guidelines and regulations covering the protection of personal information.  Likewise, the now-famous European Privacy Directive 95/46/EC is reflected in legislation and regulation in member countries throughout Europe.  Similar circumstances can be found around the world.

Breaches Create Headlines and Collective Outrage
With so much data being submitted and used in digital form, it’s no wonder that breaches occur.  And, with so much legislation and regulation requiring notification and response, it’s also no wonder that such breaches create headlines and outrage.  From the spectacular TJX breach to much smaller events involving just a few hundred accounts, the list goes on and on.  Most occurrences get a headline and a hearing, but some get official investigations and discussions even in Congress and Parliament.  Each event diminishes public trust in the handling of digital data.

But Companies and Individuals Still Choose to Provide Personal Data for the Right Payoff
Notwithstanding all the alarm bells and personal data breach episodes that seem to occur nearly every day, new online businesses continue to offer services that depend on the voluntary submission of sensitive personal data.  And, WE DO IT!  Companies do it and individuals do it.  In fact, on the corporate front, Nicholas Carr observes in Wired that “the two most popular Web-based business applications right now are for managing payroll and customer accounts – some of the most sensitive information companies have.”

Individual users also are willing to opt for value, even at the risk of privacy.  For example, The Wall Street Journal reports on two online services that help individuals manage their cash, share investment stories, track spending and trade tips: Wesabe and Geezeo.  The Baltimore Sun adds Mint to the conversation.  All three are a combination of financial advisor and social networking.  And, two of the three require users to provide some personal data, including the information needed to log in to online bank and financial accounts.  Now, that’s real (digital) trust!

In spite of privacy data breach after privacy data breach, these three online businesses (among others) have started a service that depends exclusively on the “deposit” of sensitive personal information!  How can this be?

Digital Trust Up Front
All of these companies confront the issue of (digital) trust right up front.  All claim to have “bank-level data security,” highlighting extensive use of SSL 128-bit encryption.  Most describe some sort of anonymous style of login and a minimalist approach to data storage.  All claim to avoid sharing of information unless it’s through a banking-approved third party.

Some take even more steps to claim digital trust.  For example, some promote trustmarks as further proof for digital trust.  Mint displays “VerSign Secured,” “TRUSTe” and “HACKER SAFE” on its home page, and Geezeo displays “VeriSign Secured.” On the other hand, Wesabe shows no trustmarks but does reassure users that using Wesabe is “just as secure” as using your bank’s site.  Wesabe’s technology places an agent on the user’s PC to perform the account logins and information transfer, but the need for digital trust remains.

These social-financial services sites will succeed or fail based on their ability to deliver digital trust to their users.  Despite the continuing saga of personal data breaches and identity theft, digital trust can make a difference even in the most sensitive of services if the payoff is real.

The ability to create, grow, convey and claim digital trust is the topic of Volume 7 of the Digital Trust report series, “Transparency and Assurance: Putting a Measure on Digital Trust.” Sites like Mint, Geezeo and Wesabe are operating on the realities of digital trust.  You can create it.  You can grow it.  You can convey it to users.  And, it does create value.  But it doesn’t happen automatically.  These sites are “banking” on having enough digital trust to persuade users to claim the benefits of interactive personal finance management.

Are you “in the club?” Do you receive regular (daily) updates of information security news and events right in your inbox?  I do, and I find the services very helpful (as long as I keep up on my end).  For example, the SANS Institute provides a free subscription service to by filling in some data at their portal.  SC Magazine provides a similar SC Magazine Newswire service, , for subscribers who register here.

If you are “in the club” then you have probably noticed that just about every issue of every newsletter contains a description of some information breach happening somewhere.  In fact, the SANS NewsBites has a section entitled “ATTACKS, INTRUSIONS, DATA THEFT & LOSS” that invariably describes yet another data breach (or two or three or more), sometimes with commentary relating the breach to previous events or conditions.  That’s no wonder considering that the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse lists 274 data breaches so far in just 2007 alone!

Why is it …?
The sheer repetitiveness of data breach reports begs the question: “Why is it that data breaches happen over and over and over ... ?” There can be only two logical conclusions:

1.  The technologies to protect against data breaches and information protection violations are available and simply not being deployed (it has happened before);

or

2.  Technologies to protect against certain kinds of information violations simply do not exist.

Sometimes the technologies do exist to blunt the breach (even if they do not stop the source of the breach).  For example, technology to encrypt entire hard drives or prevent the storage of data on ultra-portable peripherals (e.g., thumb drives) is readily available and would certainly be useful as antidotes to this circumstance.

On the other hand, sometimes, even when we do everything perfectly with the security technologies available, nasty things happen to good digital enterprises.  This is the condition examined in Volume 6 of the Digital Trust report series, eThreats and Countermeasures.

eThreats are eTernal
In the Digital Trust report series, eThreats are those exposures that occur “even when you’ve done everything right.” And, digital trust technologies are those security technologies that are capable of generating value for the enterprise as well as reducing the risk of loss for the value that is already present.  The question in Volume 6 revolves around what digital trust can be used to respond to eThreats.

The research effort explores the pernicious problems of eThreats by examining four specific techniques as representative of the general class of eThreats:

• Cross-site scripting
• Phishing (in all its variety)
• Open source information gathering (a.k.a. Google hacking)
• No-tech hacking

While there are partial digital trust answers, the major conclusion is that “eThreats are eTernal” (for now).  Digital trust can make a helpful dent in consequences, but it is not able to solve the problem (and generate enterprise value).

For now, we can rest easy that the security newsletters will always have breaches (and consequences) to report.  I repeat: eThreats (and data breach consequences) are eTernal.

Now here’s something you don’t see every day: the words “health” and “vault” in the same sentence.  Oh sure, we expect to see “health” and “exercise” or “health” and “diet” or even “health” and “medicine,” … but “health” and “vault”?

Well, let’s all get used to it because Microsoft has launched HealthVault, a free advertising-supported health portal.  (See article.) Others like Revolution Health, WebMD and a number of insurance companies have been working on, or offering, similar portals that allow people to upload their medical records to a Web site and then choose to share that data with doctors, other health care providers or family members. 

Like all the others, Microsoft has offered assurances about patient control over all data submitted and the privacy of all personal information.  But health care information automation in the U.S. has struggled under concerns about the protection of private information and the inability to exchange health care data from one user or application to another.  Despite the efforts under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and studies that show huge potential for cost savings in the health care system in excess of $500 billion over 15 years, the U.S. does not yet enjoy the same progress as some other countries have seen (e.g., Germany, Britain).

Value for Everyone?
If Microsoft (and Revolution Health, WebMD and various insurance companies) is successful over time in its claims of data protection and privacy for the individual, then the individual patient can obtain value from this service.  (None of the health care portal providers have offered up the transparency and evidence of design, deployment and operation to confirm and expand on the digital trust claims being made.) But, this service, and the digital trust that accompanies it, does not offer value to the other important constituencies involved, so it is limited in its ability to pull health care information automation together for the big payoff.

For example, doctors, clinics and hospitals need other kinds of digital trust beyond mere patient records confidentiality to capture value in the service.  Imagine automatic (wireless) digital blood pressure cuffs, thermometers and even digital (wireless) stethoscopes easily, reliably and securely collecting, recording and transmitting patient data to a (secure) standard repository of clinical data (maybe even the HealthVault)!  Parts of this scenario have already been built and are being used in smaller ways.  For example, devices like the Health Buddy are used today in the Health Hero Network.  Or, imagine government accountability reports and pharmacy controls being included automatically!  These functions deliver value for other constituencies needed to succeed in overall value capture.  And, they need different kinds of digital trust to come along with them.

Been There Before!
The Digital Trust report series has chronicled this kind of circumstance before.  The whole scenario around electronic voting (see Volume 4 on “Compliance Management: the Business of Keeping the Business in Business” ) illustrates what happens when digital trust is absent for an important constituency.  In that case, election boards captured value from a claim of digital trust, but individual voters did not see the (different) digital trust necessary for their value payoff.  Only today, as digital trust features and evidences are being made mandatory through law and regulation, do we see the full value trail for electronic voting.

Maybe that’s what it will take for digital trust to emerge completely enough for all of the constituencies involved in health care information automation.  It would be a shame, however, if all we did was wait for law and regulation to force it to happen when the digital trust technology we need is already here.

The first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath is “First, do no harm.” While I’m sure we’ll need a little bureaucratic boost to get standard formats and protocols, I’m also pretty sure that even Hippocrates himself would want us to press on with integrated technology, including digital trust technology, to deliver the tremendous value of better health care at less cost.