This document discusses security, trust, and how user experience interacts with these concepts. It raises questions about what security means in different contexts, how much individuals need to know to make informed decisions, and whether simplicity erodes trust in institutions. Alternative models of building trust from Japanese culture around introductions and train tickets are presented, questioning if prioritizing brands over user comfort is best. The document ends by asking for new perspectives on these issues.

1. I have been recently working on a new project and in the context of it I have been thinking
security, trust and how UX interacts with it. Today I brought a few questions that might be
interesting to you.

2. About myself, I have been programming for the better part of the last 20 years, even though I
have an UI background and am now doing “Product” (whateverthatmeans) at Consento. My
business card says “mastermind” as I am trying to think around various things, and yeah I am
from Japan - as you can see ;)

3. … but originally I am from this little Part of Austria and here on my summer trip. Thank you for
having me.

4. The product I am working on is about data. Its open source, distributed, decentralized, all those
buzz words, and we have been doing user tests.

5. And here is one of the interview questions, that I may ask to you all:
“are you confidently handling private data?” - and a few weeks back I noticed not just that there is a bias in
this question.
This question opens up the brain to a reality that is really hard to grasp. This question in itself triggers
insecurities you might not have been aware of.
And it is also the way how most securities companies sell their things.

6. F
Before I go deeper into this, I have been thinking about what security means -
in my context.

7. So first, we have data…

8. …and I define that data as “private”.
So my private data is different from what you understand as private data.

9. …and anything related to security demands that this data is shared with others.

10. Now what is the biggest security issue?

11. Me, the user, if we made systems that would only interact with itself,
then we wouldn’t need to talk and think about security at all,
it’s only those weird humans that make all the problems.

12. We become the problem because we have some hard questions to deal with. Not only do we need to think about what part of my
data is private to whom. We need to think about the different contexts in which data is used. Like in some cases data is only shared
for certain times like for example in revenge porn, where data is shared at a certain time but becomes problematic afterwards.
What is also difficult is the question of at what point an action becomes relevant about privacy.
We touch this device, do I need to worry about the touchscreen or keyboard?
At what point do I need to activate my brain?
None of those questions can be answered without understanding the underlying system.
But how much do I need to know to have a reasonably informed decision?

13. My mind & time is limited, how can I deal with the complexity?
Is there a way that I don’t need to know everything?

14. The answer is trust. We need to trust someone in order to operate complex systems.

15. In my mind I came to have this sort-of-hierarchy of trust that we use digitally. At the bottom are
“NPO”’s or “NGO”’s that specify how things work. Then we have the companies that build our
devices. — Who trusts Huawei? — Then we trust in Brands. And all the brands we interact with
are corporations.

16. But this isn’t limited to technology. Think about food. How much do you know about growing,
transporting, financing of food in the super market?
Can “Ja natürlich” provide security for our products without this advertising?
Do we need things like this to build trust in our food chain?
To me these are contexts of thought. Security in one context (supermarket) might is tied to
security on the web, on the walkway and the ad board.

17. This brings me to a question of contexts. When we deal with trust: How many providers are trust
are interacting? Can I trust the information on this website about the quality of food? Does the
information on a homepage interact/influence our perception of trust at a shop? How much do I
need to know about a context when they interact? — Hard questions to answer for me — Maybe
let those questions sink in a little…. Okay? …. so let’s look at something else for a minute.

18. … and do a little reality check. How does security work in real life? — We are here in beautiful
Vienna. How do we walk through a park? Like this: …

19. … no — we do not. When we walk through a park; when we sit in a cafe; we do not need a gun
to feel safe — unlike in America; I really have a hard time to grasp how this is so hard in
America; — why do we NOT need a gun in Schönbrunn park?

20. … Because there is a society! — and a legal system — that promise law & order.
We enter a social contract when we enter a restaurant, shop or train station that we will not be
attacked. The social infrastructure makes sure that we are protected.

21. This made me wonder about: what does law & order mean in the internet?

22. There is https (and this green UI box) that helps us maintain law.
But it used to be buy-in only.
“let’s-encrypt” is without a buy-in but it also degrades the value of the box.

23. Another way to look at it is: what is the punishment for misbehavior in public space?

24. We often argue that it is the other users. If Google misbehaves,
then there are a lot of other users angry about - power of the mob -
which is a problem that Google does not want to have.

25. … But maybe it’s less the users, and more the less, but stronger customers:
those where Google gets it’s money from…

26. … but neither really makes a dent. This is one of our presentation slides. - Not much of the miss-
behavior is challenged. Where is the law & order that makes us work as society? Well — I
promised I prepared some questions for you but I won’t give you this downer of a question.

27. Because I have been asking myself if there could be an alternative? Does history or a different
culture teach us different ways how society, and by extension our business, could work
differently? Better, even?

28. As I mentioned in the beginning I am living in Japan, and there are a few things that I came to
think of with a different eye.
You might be familiar with the fact that they use business cards - what is less common in Europe
now is the practice of introductions.

29. Let’s start with the business card. A relict of 80’s business, right? But when you actually use them there are a few things you
might notice.
1.) you need to buy in. You need to take your time and money to make the cards, depending on the materials it
can be expensive and it shows your dedication to meeting.
2.) It can only be passed in person. Its becomes personal and strengthens the relationship with the
other person.
3.) It allows to transfer external data to identify the person or private data on. — These create a very
different feeling of society.

30. The second part is about introductions. In introductions an intrinsic social contract is woven. This picture is a stock picture
and could be used for various occasions, but from the arrangement it resembles a situation in which I have been more than
once in Japan: The introduction. One person introduces another one to the a third party. Looking at it as an introduction, my
guess would be that the woman knows both the young man and the older man. She knows the older man better and wants to
introduce the younger man to him. She takes over the responsibility for the good behavior of both parties towards each
other.— The act as a “guarantor” allows both party to feel less ease about the relationship but if either of them screws up, the
woman has to take the blame from either side. If she does her job badly — as I did — then it can become a lot of work and/or
expensive to be a guarantor. If she does her job well, the relationship with both parties improves.

31. Both of these acts are inefficient and can be improved through technology. The question is: how
do we replace the gained values of both: being relatively certain about the identity and getting a
second opinion on a social contract that is happening.
Could we apply this to other user experiences?

32. Just before this meetup I had also a quick conversation about the train system, and how it’s hard to get
tickets in Vienna. To me Japan knows two things to do right: Toilets and Trains. I may talk about toilets
next time but here I want to point out an example how to do something different with train systems. What is
shown here is are different NFC cards that can be used in different parts of Japan. As you see they are
plenty. Depending on the location where you arrive/live you might want to get one or the other. Historically
it has grown to be like this…

33. … well actually its even more complicated. There is this horrible network of interoperability where
you were able to use one care or the other at different times. … but you know what?

34. All these cards more-or-less work everywhere. You just tap it and its paid. done. Passenger comfort over brand!
It was more important for the companies that the customers could use the system than to make sure that they
work exclusively. More people riding trains means more profit, no matter which card they use. This disregard of
brand does benefit a lot of people even though this is wasted effort. Now, I know this is not possible everywhere
but it offers the interesting question: Could we change these fundamental priorities to make a better service for
people?

35. This leaves me with the following questions that are hard for me to answer:
Is what UX designers do nothing but funneling trust into brands? Do we maybe need to think about the societal
impact of losing trust? What if it comes with a loss of security? Are we okay with that?
Is our need for simplicity what erodes the trust in public institutions and democracy?

36. Do we maybe need less comfortable solutions in crucial places to become proper members of
society?

37. Is it possible for money to buy trust? And if so: how do they do it? Do people with money need
our skills for that, and are we okay with this?

38. All our efforts are into making sure that users do not need more.
Make technology less complex rather than more. It is an important goal that the things we make
do have as little as necessary mental impact — right?
I am wondering though: How much an individual can deal with current life complexities? and if
what of the information we provide is essential to provide a secure and trustworthy
communication?

39. Many of use have to deal with brands and brand value, but I am wondering if not many of the
brands created are competing over nothing and if we can not identify what things can be
consolidated — or rather should be consolidated for the good of everyone involved.

40. Now, I am wondering what you are thinking when I ask this?
Any new perspective is welcome!