Elon University Home

 

The 2016 Survey: The Future of IoT Infrastructure

Credited responses by those who wrote to explain their response

Internet experts and highly engaged netizens participated in answering a five-question canvassing fielded by the Imagining the Internet Center and the Pew Internet Project from July 1 through August 12, 2016. One of the questions asked respondents to share their answer to the following query:

Billions of people use cell phones and the internet now and hundreds of millions more are expected to come online in the next decade. At the same time, more than half of those who use the internet and cell phones still do not use that connectivity for shopping, banking and other important transactions and key social interactions. As more people move online globally both opportunities and threats will grow. Will people's trust in online interactions, their work, shopping, social connections, pursuit of knowledge and other activities, be strengthened or diminished over the next 10 years?

Among the key themes emerging from 1,233 respondents' answers were: Trust will be dependent upon immediate context and applied differently in different circumstances. - Trust is not binary or evenly distributed; there are different levels of it. - Better technology plus regulatory and industry changes will help increase trust. - There will be no choice for users but to comply and hope for the best. - People often become attached to convenience and inured to risk. - “The trust train has left the station”; sacrifices tied to trust are a “side effect of progress.” - Better technology plus regulatory and industry changes will help increase trust. - The younger generation and people whose lives rely on technology the most are the vanguard of those who most actively use it, and these groups will grow larger. - Blockchain may or may not be useful in trust-building. - The less-than-satisfying current situation will not change much in the next decade. - Trust will diminish because corporate and government interests are not motivated to improve trust or protect the public. - Criminal exploits will diminish trust.

This non-scientific canvassing found that a bit less than half, 47.85% of these particular respondents, said trust will be strengthened, 24.41% said trust will be diminished and 27.74% of these respondents said “trust will stay about the same."

If you wish to read the full survey report with analysis, click here:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2016_survey/Trust_in_Internet_Activities.xhtml

To read anonymous survey participants' responses with no analysis, click here:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2016_survey/Trust_in_Internet_Activities_anon.xhtml

Written elaborations by for-credit respondents

Following are the full responses by study participants who chose to take credit when making remarks in the survey - only including those who included a written elaboration. Some of these are the longer versions of expert responses that are contained in shorter form in the official survey report. About half of respondents chose to remain anonymous when providing their elaboration on the question (credited responses are published on a separate page).

These responses were collected in an “opt in” invitation to several thousand people who have been identified by researching those who are widely quoted as technology builders, observers and analysts and those who have made insightful predictions to our previous queries about the future of the internet.

Mike Roberts, Internet Hall of Fame member and first president and CEO of ICANN, wrote, "The designers, developers and users of computer-based systems are still in a primitive era. From an S curve perspective, we are hardly at the steep lower left end. The rise of an entrepreneurial culture among developers has accelerated the diffusion of these systems but there is far to go. Because of the tangible benefits in convenience, quality, quantity, etc., of using such systems, humans will develop advanced techniques for protection from criminal behavior on the 'net,' but such activity will persist online as it does offline. You don't stop going to the grocery store because there was a carjacking incident last week, etc."

Charlie Firestone, communications and society program executive director and vice president at The Aspen Institute, wrote, "Security measures and hacking are in an arms race. For every advance there will be setbacks. I expect the balance to remain about where it is, with peaks and valleys as the race continues. With trust, people will increase use of online media for transactions. Blockchain technology is a net plus in this ongoing saga."

Vinton Cerf, vice president and chief Internet evangelist at Google and member of the Internet Hall of Fame, noted, ”Trust is rapidly leaking out of the Internet environment Unless we strengthen the ability of content and service suppliers to protect users and their information, trust will continue to erode. Strong authentication to counter hijacking of accounts is vital."

Henning Schulzrinne, a professor at Columbia University and Internet Hall of Fame member, wrote, "Under the current system, almost all the risks of breaches are borne by individuals, particularly in terms of time and effort of fixing problems. Data once leaked cannot be un-leaked. I'm assuming that the current sorry state of system security will persist, with buggy IOT software, slow upgrades of Android and web sites that are still subject to SQL injection and other common programming problems. Currently, blockchain systems do not seem to address any real problems, except if you are in the business of distributing ransomware. For example, the recent SWIFT attacks would not have been prevented by blockchains—since the initial transaction was done by a legitimate actor, internally compromised, all the other signers would have simply confirmed that the compromised bank indeed wanted to transfer millions to a casino in the Philippines. There are real opportunities for improving electronic financial transactions, but anonymity and non-reversability are bugs, not features."

Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation and member of the Interent Hall of Fame, wrote, "I expect people will learn to distrust online commerce more, as they see servers will be cracked and their personal information will become available to bad actors (both criminals and states)."

John Markoff, senior writer at the New York Times, commented, "Inevitably as people learn more about the nature of the technology they are using their trust will decline."

Jamais Cascio, distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future, observed, "The strengthening of trust is contingent upon the lack of a big 'asteroid-impact' event, and assumes that the dynamics currently at play (tension between crime and law enforcement, surveillance and privacy, etc.) continue. Blockchain and similar technologies will help drive this increased trust, but not simply because of broader use of encryption. Blockchain, etc., will make possible truly novel approaches to banking, shopping, learning, and nearly every other kind of online interaction. Distributed privacy, defensive personal software agents, and increased individual control over personal information will create new playing fields of transactions. Big corporations will leap at those fields, but won't be able to totally control them. The analogy here is the use of mobile phone minutes as a pseudo-currency in Africa, which started as a bottom-up, ad-hoc phenomenon. Formalization as mPesa and similar programs streamlined the process, but in this scenario ultimate control over the uses of the minute/currency would still rest in the hands of the users."

Susan Price, digital architect at Continuum Analytics, said, "The paradox is that in order for individuals to realize the incredible potential of technology, we must each uniquely self-identify. Doing so involves great risk. Individuals routinely surrender their rights and commit to legal agreements without studying or understanding the risks and value changing hands. What's needed is a system (a human application programming interface, or API) that gives individuals appropriate control over their online activities and the data that most closely concerns them. Corporations and governments could 'opt in' to support such a system, but must not be the primary creators or maintainers of it. Unless such a system is created and popularized, trust in online systems overall will diminish because governments will continue to violate citizens’ privacy, hackers and thieves will thrive, and corporations will shift more and more of the burdens onto consumers. If an appropriate system emerges and everyone plays by the same rules, trust would ensue. Blockchain technologies hold the most promise for making such a trust system possible. Much will depend on the first few popular examples. Although blockchains so far remain robustly secure, systems that interface with and leverage them are subject to the same security problems we're familiar with (e.g., Ethereum's DAO recursive hack https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/17/critical-update-re-dao-vulnerability/). Let’s assume blockchain technologies and related will make such a trust system possible. Individuals could conduct secure trades with one another without the use of intermediaries, or with intermediaries operating at greatly reduced costs. More people worldwide could find sustaining outlets for their creativity and endeavors. The financial services industry will be revolutionized and reinvented. With little to no 'float' for exchanges of value, whole sectors such as clearinghouses will vanish. Citizens of countries where payments are most delayed today will enjoy faster settlement and thus their citizens enjoy less graft and corruption and benefit more directly from their productivity. Voting and civil rights will be completely transformed. It will be feasible for political structures to transcend geography. Though we’ll still need local law enforcement and security forces, we could choose to become 'citizens' of organizations with specific goals, agendas, and benefits that align with our needs and beliefs regardless of our current location or residence. This could speed human rights advances and productivity even more. Healthcare and advances in medical technology and solutions would evolve more quickly and be available to more people. This utopian view assumes that the identity interface remains outside the direct control of any corporation or government. Distributed control over such a system is vital to prevent abuses (or to recover from power plays or attacks)."

Jonathan Grudin, principal researcher at Microsoft, commented, "This question should be prefaced by asking 'Do people today trust in online interactions too much, too little, or just the right amount?' Mass media stories make it clear that many people trust online media too much and come to regret it. A little reduction in trust could be healthy. The other questions are: Will online media become more trustworthy? Will most people become better at assessing when to trust it? It could become more trustworthy, but I won't hold my breath. I think people will become somewhat better at assessing trustworthiness."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, commented, "Technology is far outpacing security, privacy, and reliability. The problem will intensify with the Internet of Things, as the Internet connects more machines in the physical world."

Dan Lynch, Internet pioneer developer and founder of CyberCash, noted, "There are far too many ways to cloak true identity, thus trust will be a big problem online. "

Mark Richmond, systems engineer for a major branch of the US government, commented, "As stories of exploits and losses continued to add up, the general sense of trust in technology enjoyed by the mostly young will gradually diminish. The eventual state of healthy distrust will probably be a positive in the long run."

Giacomo Mazzone, head of institutional relations at the European Broadcasting Union, wrote, "If you look at the number of phishing examples around us and at the number of victims, you can understand why and how a digital world without a digital literacy could become potentially a world more dangerous than the one we have today. The next billions connected will be potentially the more exposed to new generations of digital crooks that have on them dozen of years of advance."

Oscar Gandy, emeritus professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, "Of course, as a privacy and surveillance scholar, my answer is more hopeful, than analytical. I am hopeful that the public will become much more aware, and less "resigned" to the fact that their transaction-generated-information [TGI] is routinely used to shape their experience within economic, social and political markets/environments. These areas of impact are tightly interconnected, although some analytical assessments can determine differential influences for different population segments. I am most concerned about the nature and extent of surveillance and the strategic use of TGI in the public sphere, or in 'political and civic life.' Hopefully, the public will come to understand the myriad ways through which their TGI is used to shape the information environment in which they make important choices, including those we would identify as being political. What I have seen of late leads me to see the balance between benefits and harms in the political area to be largely negative, and worsening."

Doc Searls, journalist, speaker, and director of Project VRM at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, wrote, "Phones are already extensions of our hands and minds. Yet they are also only a nine-year-old technology (dating from the advent of apps, in the summer of 2007), and dominated by hand-held units that tend to be replaced by their owners about every eighteen months. Meanwhile, the services behind many of the most-used apps are becoming more intelligent, complex, and opaque about the full extent of what they are up to. We tend not to see these services' involvements with surveillance, manipulative algorithms, artificial intelligence and collaborations with parties unknown. For the most part this seems benign, but on the whole it masks a loss of agency behind a gain of convenience. At some point, however, this trade-off—which is one we never consciously made—will reach limits. It isn’t clear yet what those will be, but the Faustian nature of this non-bargain will surely become manifest. This is when trust will break down. In fact it already has in the regulatory sphere. The abuses of surveillance capitalism (the term coined by Shoshana Zuboff of Harvard Business School) are well-known and highly irksome to lawmakers and regulators, especially in Europe. This is why, for example, we now have the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU. Expect this single law to radically alter the way online businesses treat users and customers, and personal data gathered from them. The anticipated arrival of the GDPR’s full regulatory might in 2018 (with severe penalties for noncompliance) is already altering the way many big businesses approach personal data. In the words of one executive (who works for one of those big companies and asks to stay unnamed), personal data is quickly becoming a 'toxic asset.' He also calls surreptitiously gathered personal data the “radon gas” of business, and 'a silent killer.' But the most important moves will not be made by big business. Instead they’ll be made by independent individuals and smaller businesses that need to interact in a fully trusting way, where exposure to risks and bad acting are minimized by point-to-point and end-to-end conversations, transactions, and relationships. There will also be a rise in conditional sharing of personal information on a need-to-know (NTK) basis, and on terms set by individuals as well. Some of these terms will be sourced in neutral and trusted dot-orgs such as Customer Commons, which will do for personal terms what Creative Commons did for personal copyright. Also expect a distinction to appear between sovereign personal identity—the kind given to people by their parents at birth and fully controlled by the individual—and administrative identifiers. Identity in the future will be anchored in the former rather than the latter. So will control over how we are known by others. Imagine, for example, getting married and changing your last name. You should be able to change administrative records of your last name at all the government and commercial entities with which you have a relationship in one move. That is only possible when you are in full control of your own sovereign-source identity and the means by which others know it, and can trust your authority over it. Expect to see this change in the way identity works come to pass over the next few years. Also expect to see distributed ledgers (e.g., blockchain) involved."

Lee McKnight, associate professor at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies, replied, "Trust can only be strengthened when people and systems actually have a reason to trust each other more. With bots attempting every 14 seconds to break into every large enterprise, it would be foolish to trust more. (In a decade we can only assume attacks will be even more frequent.) Still, in a re-architected information environment, properly designed systems, services, devices, and networks supporting organizations with information-security awareness embedded in the organizational culture can do a much better job of distinguishing between that which they can trust and that which they do not know. Online transaction volumes will continue to grow, even as malicious insiders, bots, criminal gangs, and nation-states also grow. Blockchain technology is an incredibly promising piece of a much bigger conundrum. Secure irrevocable ledgers are a great accounting mechanism without which the Internet of Things should not be trusted. But, as continued hacks of Bitcoin indicate, a secure ledger pointing to resources of value can also be used as a map to point out to thieves and bots where the money is."

Michael Whitaker, vice president of emerging solutions at ICF International, replied, "Trust in online interactions will increase over the next decade—the trust that most individuals place in the information communicated through their screens is already rapidly increasing, and I don't see that trend changing. However, much of that trust is misplaced, as the devices and the information they communicate are not as secure or unbiased as people perceive. The trust people place in their online interactions will actually outpace the trust they should place in them based on the underlying threats. Hopefully, breakthrough trust technologies like blockchain systems will continue to develop to provide an actual level of security, assurance, and integrity in the information communicated to match the likely trust that the public will readily extend to their online interactions."

Glenn Ricart, Internet Hall of Fame member and founder and CTO of US Ignite, said, "Trust will be strengthened over the next decade because there is a strong generational shift to interacting online. The expectation of Millennials and others is that they can and should be able to trust online transactions. That expectation will provide fuel to efforts improving trust. Blockchains will help to preserve a degree of privacy in a world which increasingly expects transparency."

T.Rob Wyatt, an independent network security consultant, said, "Although we live in a digital house of cards and our national infrastructure targets are frighteningly porous, the global economy relies on confidence in digital transaction infrastructure and security. We will continue to invest heavily in the perception of security even as we ignore it. Digital security is the toxic waste dump of our age. The willful blindness of corporate and government entities of the need to invest in basic security has resulted in the externalization of these costs in large pools of accumulated technical debt. Not only is the cost deferred and shifted to external parties, but it is amplified by orders of magnitude when the cleanup and effects are finally expressed. We are at the point where investment in security theater is the debt service against the profits reaped by neglecting security and it's to the point we can barely contain that debt service load. But as long as we do, trust in our digital infrastructure will continue to grow, however undeserved it may be."

K.G. Schneider, a higher-education administrator, wrote, "We will see the same cycles of increasing trust followed by breaches followed by new technologies."

Beth Corzo-Duchardt, assistant professor at Muhlenberg College, wrote, "Whether warranted or not, trust in online activities will be strengthened because there are so many industry forces invested in garnering trust through advertising and indirect propaganda."

Scott Fahlman, computer science and artificial intelligence research professor at Carnegie Mellon University, observed, "'Trust' is the wrong question to ask. Smart phone and non-expert people doing complex things online are recent phenomena, very sudden by historical standards. In the past, human societies have had decades or centuries to come to grips with such disruptive technologies that have great potential for both good and bad consequences. The user community (which might be almost everyone) has to understand what these technologies do, what are the dangers, and society has to make new rules and social compacts about what things are OK, what are bad (in certain contexts), and how to police or prevent the bad ones. That takes time, and we're not there with Internet and cell phones. But kids who have lived with these things all their lives now are getting much smarter about what to do and not do, and society is beginning to come up with some consensus views on the limits of privacy invasion, etc. We need to work on this, but we needed to work on the rules for newspapers, broadcasting, high-speed driving, and so on. The difference now is that we need to do this more quickly than before."

David Morar, a doctoral student and Google policy fellow at George Mason University, replied, "Societal understanding and acceptance of online interactions and of mobile devices as an important pillar in human life will only grow into the future. The fact that these tools can also be used for horrible things should not and will not completely overshadow the potential benefits of using these tools in more aspects of life. One example of this is the near-mainstream appeal of online and mobile dating. Once seen as a place reserved for 'creeps' and 'deviants,' online dating is now as normal as making dinner reservations online through an app. This shows that social norms change, adapt, and expand (or not) in a constant back-and-forth with technology. A serious educational endeavor will be desperately needed in the near future in order to help citizens evolve their current understanding of fundamentals such as privacy, security, and the limits of the tools being used. While the generations born before 1980 might be a bit harder to reach, younger users—digital natives, as they are being called—will certainly benefit from a flexible and systematic learning of the aforementioned fundamental concepts."

Alf Rehn, professor and chair of management and organization at Åbo Akademi University, said, "Call it the iron law of Internet trust—with more engagement comes more chances of glitches and hacks, which means that intelligent distrust will be a civic skill just like media literacy."

Jim Warren, longtime technology entrepreneur and activist, responded, "As much as I use, enjoy, and am mostly an enthusiastic user of online interactions, sadly, I have to say that it is becoming more and more difficult to do many of them in a reliably secure fashion. Assuring that such interactions are surely reliable and secure, is not easy, and perhaps impossible. (And it certainly doesn't help when governments do everything possible to make sure that such activities—notably some 'types' of communications—are difficult or impossible certainly doesn't help. No matter how much it might—and often might not - help governments protect their citizens (or too-often much more important to them, protect themselves and those who govern)."

Susan Etlinger, industry analyst at Altimeter, wrote, "In the early days of the Internet when there were no precedents for 'e' business, venture capitalists funded business models they understood. Of course, the prevailing model in those days was advertising: eyeballs, clicks, and any measure of 'engagement' that would prove that organizations were earning their customers' attention. This has made consumer data the dominant currency of the Internet. But while we've become good at earning attention, we haven't done so well at earning trust. Study after study reiterates that consumers are uneasy with the ways organizations collect and use their data. They feel resigned and uncomfortable, but they have no other realistic option. They may do a 'digital detox' for a few days, but not too many people are trying to live off the grid. So there is a tremendous opportunity to realign two seemingly conflicting imperatives: the imperative to innovate and perform, and the imperative to sustain long-term, trusted relationships with customers and consumers. I think we can do both, but it's going to get worse before it gets better. Organizations are going to see a continued flight from open platforms to closed ones like Snapchat, WeChat, and other messaging apps, and they're going to have to prove that they're trusted actors in order to woo customers back to the open Web."

Louisa Heinrich, founder at Superhuman Limited, wrote, "I fear trust will be diminished (i.e., we will be certain we are being watched, that our communications and interactions are not secure) but we will use the technology anyway, either because we have no other choice or because it's just too convenient."

Jon Lebkowsky, CEO of Polycot Associates, commented, "Currently, trust is diminishing. The high commitment to online data systems for sensitive transactions and storage of sensitive data is still a relatively new thing, and we've seen breaches where there were security flaws that were not obvious until the breaches had occurred. We're still perfecting systems and processes, and expectations are low and will probably be lower. However, this will drive security innovation, and I'm confident that we will eventually restore trust as systems improve."

Cornelius Puschmann of the Hans-Bredow-Institute for Media Research, Hamburg, noted, "As use increases, hopefully so will literacy, which may well diminish blind trust. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. Note: I believe that not using the Internet is mostly a question of convenience and cost, more so than of a lack of trust. 'Key social interactions' may well mean sharing vacation pictures with your grandchildren on WhatsApp, rather than using online banking."

Arthur Kover, a respondent who shared no identifying background, said, "Overall, trust will dimimish. But people will cluster into 'safe' arenas, rarely venturing into the open, unsafe ones."

Dave Robertson, a professor of political science, commented, "Trust is not too good as it is. If there are terrorist or criminal efforts that more seriously disrupt the internet—as I'd guess is likely—trust will diminish."

Janet Salmons, independent scholar, writer and educator at Vision2Lead, wrote, "Those of us who care about the Internet, who feel the social, cultural, and intellectual values are immense need to step up and advocate for practices that will increase public trust. At this time, as someone who works and manages most areas of life with some computer-mediated process, I am looking for ways to limit online transactions. My trust was reduced by identity theft and hacking incidents-- so I think twice before I do anything involving personal information. Alas, digital literacy has not progressed (users aren't necessary broadly literate) and many people lack basic knowledge about online safety."

Amanda Licastro, an assistant professor of digital rhetoric, replied, "Educators and activists are calling for an increased awareness of how our data is collected, monitored, and monetized. As awareness spreads I predict a backlash against wearable devices, third-party data-sharing, and camera surveillance. “

Paul Dourish, chancellor's professor of informatics at the University of California-Irvine, wrote, "The primarily thing that banks, governments, and corporations need to do in order to be trusted is to act in a trustworthy manner. Where people don't trust online action, it is not least because corporate actors have not been good custodians of user data, etc. The use of online services will increase because it will become increasingly difficult to opt out, but that doesn't mean that those services will be trusted unless entirely new attitudes towards governance and responsibility emerge.”

Christopher Wilkinson, a retired senior European Union official, commented, "Trust is already challenged. The technologies of creating and maintaining trust are still too complicated for the average use—e.g., I do not know how to encrypt my email.”

Joe Mandese, editor-in-chief of MediaPost, replied, "Forces will push this simultaneously in both directions. People will trust online interactions more because they will become more familiar with them and because new technologies—especially blockchaining—will create a more secure infrastructure. People will also trust it less, because new forms of interactions will be created that they will not be familiar with and these will create opportunities for less security. Two simultaneous forces pushing in opposite directions."

Bob Garfield, a journalist, said, "I'm confident that secure structures are on the horizon. The problem is that the status quo is so insecure, potentially catastrophically so."

Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Research Center, wrote, "Mobile devices offer greater access, enhance self-efficacy and agency, and they become personal extensions of individual identity and one's social world. Providing peer-to-peer connectivity on a global scale reduces hierarchies and challenges existing social models. The impact will be felt across all sectors, as generations who grew up mobile move into positions of greater social and economic influence."

Demian Perry, director of mobile at NPR, commented, "The reality is that online transactions are now far safer than traditional transactions and they will only become more so. My credit card has been stolen multiple times in the past two years, all as a result of security holes at brick-and-mortar point of sale that would have been avoided had I made the transaction online. In just one example of how online transactions are so much more secure, we are now working with our member stations to implement a donation method that will effectively authorize a new credit card for each transaction and immediately destroy that card after the transaction. In the short moment when the card is active, it will have a credit limit that is very close to the intended donation amount. And as we continue to improve the security of online transactions with advances like this one, consumers will become increasingly confident in their online purchases."

Vin Crosbie, a professor at Syracuse University, wrote, "Although alarming incidents of massive breaches of online security will probably occur during the next ten years—probably extending upon the public's largely false sense of worry or distrust now about online security—people will nonetheless use utilize online interactions much more during the next 10 years than now."

Jesse Drew, a digital media professor at the University of California-Davis, commented, "While privacy issues are paramount, people in general will be more comfortable with online interaction."

M.E. Kabay, professor of computer information systems at Norwich University, replied, "Trust will increase simply because familiarity consistently increases even irrational trust. Risk analysis is not a strong point among human beings. A simple illustration is that many people fear death and injury from terrorist attacks far more than from domestic nutcases armed with automatic weapons, from drunk drivers, and even from ordinary car accidents. Reality has little influence over emotion. Impact is likely to be affected by the growing population of smartphone-equipped users, especially in developing countries. In East Africa, for example, we have already see major effects on economic justice simply because inland farmers have been able to find out how much their crops are being sold for in coastal cities. The tool for this information exchange? Mobile phones—not even smart phones. In East Africa and elsewhere, impoverished, cash-deprived rural family members have finally been able to benefit from the income of their diaspora simply through text messages facilitating money transfers, quite separately from the official banking systems. This kind of disintermediation can be highly positive. Disintermediation (removing absolute control of centralized power centers) over information flows threatens established dictatorships; they will retaliate to suppress independent information flows. We have already seen several examples in which such governments have interrupted Internet access for their own citizens in what they perceive as emergencies; the People's Republic of China routinely does so using the so-called Great Firewall of China for controlling external information inputs. On the positive side, remote interactions for creative work have resulted in brilliant innovations such as virtual choirs (look up the work of Eric Whitacre for stunning examples). Augmented reality can include artistic efforts in addition to chasing imaginary pets as in Pokemon Go. See the materials for my course Politics of Cyberspace for more material on these questions: http://www.mekabay.com/courses/academic/norwich/cs407/index.htm As for blockchain systems, these cryptographic signatures may help decrease anonymity, but they won't stop pseudonymity."

Uta Russmann, communications professor at the FHWien University of Applied Sciences in Vienna, Austria, said, "People's trust will be strengthened over the next 10 years, as most of the people who are shopping, banking, etc., will have been socialized and educated within the online world."

Axel Bruns, professor at the Digital Media Research Center at Queensland University of Technology, commented, "I'm not sure that trust will continue to play an especially important role in these questions into the future. It seems more likely to me that there will be a gradual curtailing of alternative options for such transactions: banks and government offices, for instance, are increasingly moving their client engagement facilities online while reducing offline transaction opportunities. It will become more and more difficult for clients to resist such a push to use online facilities. This may open up a market for small players offering bespoke face-to-face services, but it is unlikely that they will be able to capture more than a small slice of the market. On transactions, essentially what we are seeing is a supplier-driven push to use online services, which is only slightly mitigated by government regulations that require some essential services still to be delivered in non-online modes as well, especially to people and communities who remain offline or poorly connected. On social interactions, as opposed to transactions, the dynamic is different, and there is more of a user-driven pull that is driving adoption; this in turn is related in particular to network effects. Here, remaining offline or poorly connected—deliberately or because of adverse circumstances—is increasingly felt as a significant disadvantage. The more acutely that disadvantage is felt, the more likely users are also to overlook significant concerns about trust: you may not fundamentally 'trust' Facebook's handling of your data, for instance, but you may nonetheless use Facebook because of the substantial peer pressure to do so (and the fear of missing out associated with not using it). One way for many users to address such mistrust of key platforms is likely to be the creative obfuscation of personal information, in an attempt to make personal information less traceable—even if the growing sophistication of profiling algorithms means that such attempts are largely unsuccessful."

Naomi Baron, a professor of linguistics at American University, replied, "To the extent that more and more people use the Internet for these kinds of connectivity, logic suggests we conclude that trust in the system will be strengthened. However, I suspect that what in fact will be happening is that people will increasingly stop thinking about the trust issue, sensing they have no other option but the Internet for conducting the business of daily life. Much as Internet users today commonly believe they have no choice when it comes to giving up privacy, I predict users will feel the same way about trust."

Aaron Chia Yuan Hung, assistant professor at Adelphi University, replied, "People will change what they trust. Just as people used to prefer an oral agreement over a signature in the past, people grow to accept what they can or are willing to trust. People are also likely to believe what they want to believe because confirmation bias is inherently human nature. Farhad Manjoo's True Enough is a wonderful read on this topic. It does make critical thinking more difficult, and education must play a big role in making sure people look at people, facts, data, etc., with a more analytic lens."

Peter Morville, president of Semantic Studios, said, "Trust exists in a state of persistent disequilibrium. We need it to function as a society, but the threats and breaches will continue."

Paul Jones, clinical professor and director at the University of North Carolina, commented, "Remember travelers checks replacing cash? ATMs replacing your favorite teller? We're seeing that again. Not just with financial transactions but with social interactions, health, and education. At this point, there is no stopping the transitions already underway. Blockchain systems are only the latest technical augmentation of trust. Expect more. Soon."

Jason Hong, associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, noted, "The main reason trust won't advance significantly in the near future is cybersecurity. Every single week, there is news about some new massive data breach or malware attack. These kinds of cybersecurity problems rightfully erode people's trust in the Internet, and they are only getting worse over time as script kiddies, criminals, and state-sponsored hackers get more sophisticated."

Larry Magid, CEO of ConnectSafely.org, said, "Technology will get better and more secure and more people will realize the benefits of online financial transactions. Besides, there will be fewer (or more expensive) alternatives."

David Sarokin, author of Missed Information: Better Information for Building a Wealthier, More Sustainable Future (MIT Press), wrote, "I'm not sure trust is the right word here. It's more a matter of attrition and familiarity. As more and more activities migrate online, and as ever larger numbers of people simply grow up with the Internet, it seems inevitable that its use will expand, both in terms of overall numbers people using it, as well as the types and scopes of activities available. As for the blockchain, who the @#$%&* knows?"

Amy Webb, futurist and CEO at the Future Today Institute, observed, "Our trust in our devices tends to stay constant until a catastrophic event––like our accounts being hacked, or a national news story about surveillance, or our devices being stolen. And even then, our concern lasts only as long as we're dealing with the immediate consequences, such as having to change our passwords or canceling our credit cards. Paradoxically, in the past decade we have seen a dramatic increase in data breaches, and yet we continue to entrust our devices with our fingerprints, our faces, our heart rates, our exact locations, and more––in addition to our credit card numbers and bank accounts. We willingly put our trust in our devices and digital networks when the benefits of convenience outweigh our fears about privacy. Over time, as our codependent relationship with our devices becomes more acute, the very notion of privacy, and indeed its importance, begins to erode. Those areas of life which will ask for more and more of our personal data include health care, state and national government, travel, commerce, and of course, personal communications––technology companies and social networks. We will put up a fight unless the benefits are immediately understandable and daily life is little bit better for the exchange. This is why we hear people grumble about Facebook and Google's privacy policies, and we continue to use both––because they've become indispensable part of our lives. The fact that the government has access to similar personal data––in fact, some would argue it's less than what we're sharing with tech companies––continually enrages us. Why? Because we're not distracted by immediate, tangible benefits in exchange for our data."

danah boyd, founder of Data & Society, commented, "Actually, trust will be both strengthened and diminished, depending on context. People will stop seeing it as 'the internet' and focus more on particular relationships. Increasingly, large swaths of the population in environments where tech is pervasive have no other model."

Jeff Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism, said, "To believe that our trust in technology will be diminished is to believe that we are powerless against it—and I do not believe that. We have many tools at hand to govern our own use of technology—norms, laws, regulation, the market—and we are using them. Sadly, media do not help with this process by usually donning dystopian glasses, asking what could go wrong with any technology rather than also exploring what could go right. Moral panic—#technopanic—often ensues. Also, whole markets of new companies pop up to feed on these fears. And, especially in Europe, industries and institutions that are challenged by the change technology brings resort to political pressure, regulation, and legislation as protectionism. So it is important for the technologists to do a better job of acknowledging and addressing what could go wrong and of exploring and promoting what could go right. It is important for other institutions—government, media, education—to help explore the opportunities, if for no other reason than to remain competitive in the world. We're smart. We'll figure it out. We always have, eventually."

Nigel Cameron, president and CEO of the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies, observed, "The Net will be likely be strengthened in regard to trust, though this is a risky judgment and there's, say, a 40-60 chance of a collapse of trust through a series of catastrophic failures, whether the work of asymmetric bad actors, crooks, power-grabbing corporations, or mere systemic incompetence (OPM, etc.). If it goes the 40 way, we could end up with a rush to an analog future."

Daniel Berleant, author of The Human Race to the Future, said, "This is a no-brainer. Digital devices are becoming more pervasive all the time. Questions of trust and privacy will always be there but there is no reason to expect their impact to be greater than has been the case so far."

Christopher Mondini, a leader with a major Internet governance organization, wrote, "The development of the 'offline' ecosystem is what will drive greater trust and reliance in online transactions. In more-mature markets, trust in institutions and leaders is in general decline, while in newer Internet frontiers, better financial, contractual, and political structures are rising to meet the challenge of demand for more online social discourse and commercial exchange. Globally the net effect is neutral."

Dan York, senior content strategist at the Internet Society, commented, "I hope trust will be strengthened, but I fear that if we don't do anything about it, trust will be diminished. Trust will probably be diminished over the next 2-5 years, but after that I hope it will be strengthened, as technologies and policies get adopted that raise the level of trust. So my answer for 10 years out is different from 5 years out. We are seeing an erosion of trust right now as more and more data breaches happen, more and more surveillance happens, and more and more security vulnerabilities happen. There are ways to make that trust stronger, some of them technical, some of them policy—and I believe we must implement these tools. But it will be difficult to do so. While I think in the near-term trust will be diminished, if we do things right trust will be strengthened in the end. I'd give about even odds as to whether those things will happen. The impact of diminished trust could be strongest on economic activity. It could also cause governments to want to 'take action to protect citizens' that could result in the imposition of harsh legislation or the further fragmentation of the Internet. This could lessen the opportunities available to all. Blockchain systems are one of the many different building blocks that can bring about a more trusted Internet. They may have a role as a distributed ledger system—but we'll need to see how their usability evolves and what kind of deployment we see outside of crypto-currencies."

Jerry Michalski, founder at REX, wrote, "Trust will grow, but not because organizations delivering services will be more trustworthy. Instead, systems will become more robust and we humans will become more acclimated to what they do. Our resistance will weaken. Our appetites will be whetted. Cybersecurity breakdowns do not seem to be hurting public confidence much. The blockchain may shift trust considerably, away from traditional institutions and out to the open ledger. But the blockchain is an act of faith as well, and may end up as flawed as previous platforms have been."

John Sniadowski, a systems architect, wrote, "Trust levels will vary across timelines based on the changing threat landscape and high-prominence security failures. Being able to prove Identity with high degrees of certainty is of paramount importance. Until Identity systems are improved to become more robust against theft and impersonation then there is no real basis for online trust. This will impact across all online activity. Identity systems based on blockchain architectures may be able to improve overall trust on transactions. In addition, loss of control of personal information will have an overall negative impact on online trust. Safeguards must be built into any widespread architecture to cater for the rehabilitation of individuals who break rules. Without this concept there can be no social justice because offenders will carry the tag for the rest of their lives with no hope of full rehabilitation. This of course from some perspectives cuts across the trust boundaries, but how do we define mechanisms that allow offences to be properly forgotten. A moment of madness during youth could destroy meaningful prospects for the life of that individual. Trust therefore cannot be absolute is has to be engineered that levels of trust and risk are balanced in any systems design."

Bob Frankston, Internet pioneer and innovator, commented, "The choices for the question are too limited. Trust is not binary. We need to have new forms of trust and Plan B's for when trust fails. This is where algorithms can help—as with credit card companies seeing patterns—but it cuts both ways."

Fred Baker, fellow at Cisco Systems and longtime Internet Engineering Task Force leader, wrote, "Fundamentally, I don't think the average individual understands the communication media they use, whether it is a postal envelope, the dial on a rotary phone, Morse Code, or the many different kinds of communication that use the Internet. They trust them implicitly, until they are given a reason not to, or they don't trust them. If anything, that's why we have to limit their choices, such as by forcing the use of https over http, or the use of TLS in SMTP, or other places. It helps them make better choices. Where that breaks down is when trust is clearly violated. In my father's era, General/President Eisenhower had to tell people to beware the military/industrial complex, and Washington had to tell citizens to 'beware foreign entanglements.' Governments have grossly failed us in the past 50 years, leading UK people to distrust the EU, US people to distrust NSA and FBI, and so on. That hopefully forces people to use the media more wisely, but I don't believe that they do."

Jannick B. Pedersen, futurist and impact investor, said, "I strongly believe that smart trust will steadily rise. We are in a continued race between good and negative applications of technology. In the past, periods of blind trust in the printed media, or the banking system, were replaced by increased personal vigilance and smart trust. The very same process will occur as the world moves online: new users will begin with high trust; after disappointments their trust will dramatically diminish, and then grow again as the users develop smart trust—by becoming more shrewd in judging online interaction. The emergence of blockchain is not a final answer to perfect trust—just as anti-virus software has not provided perfect protection. Blockchain technology will, however, increase our trust in the online world."

Marcel Bullinga, trend watcher and keynote speaker @futurecheck, wrote, "Strengthened trust is my hope, not a prediction. It is the great promise of blockchain of course, in combination with a host of other privacy and trust technologies, that it will make trusted peer-to-peer transactions possible. This is not in the interest of current technology companies and powerful platforms like Google, Facebook, and Uber, so it will be heavily battled. Yet, it would revolutionize our economy into a true, trusted DIY world."

David Durant, a business analyst for the UK Government Digital Service, wrote, "People who have grown up using mobile technology for social media, interaction with businesses and increasingly as a way to interact with government will see doing so as entirely normal and consider it the natural channel for a very significant proportion of all their life's interactions."

Avery Holton, an assistant professor and humanities scholar at the University of Utah, said, "As technologies and access expand, privacy in areas such as personal finance and health will certainly continue to be questioned and tested. At the same time, organizations and companies are working to enhance the protection and security of individual data. Beyond encryption and multiple password requirements, new technologies in the coming decade should work to provide fail-safes for individual information should the security for such information fail. Where now a bank may send an individual a new debit card if their account information was breached (a process that may take days or weeks), they may be able to simply reset EMV (or forthcoming) chips remotely. We must remember that with each test to the security of our data comes an opportunity to improve our security. Part of the current problems rests on the shoulders of individuals who recognize threats to their security but struggle to change (e.g., many still use a single password across multiple channels). So, organizations and companies must also focus on engaging individuals and encouraging a change in their habits."

Andrew Walls, managing vice president at Gartner, said, "Trust is not achieved merely through effective implementation of security processes and systems. Trust is a quality of a relationship between two entities. Trust is also both a conscious and unconscious attribute of a relationship. For example, many people state that they do not trust Facebook, yet the behavior of those same people demonstrates that they entrust Facebook with many details of their lives. It is possible to claim that these people do not understand the 'trust' ramifications and implications of their sharing behavior in social media, but that same claim can be made of every social interaction, online or otherwise. Rather than speak of trust as an absolute or binary situation (trusted or untrusted), trust must be viewed as a spectrum or continuum with multiple levels. For example, I might trust a bank with my money, but I do not trust them with the details of my social life, whereas, I won't trust my cousin with my money but will trust him/her with details of my social life. Trust is a subtle, dynamic attribute of social relationships between entities. Corporations that understand this try to put a human face on their services (think of Flo from Progressive Insurance) to stimulate customers to trust the proxy (e.g., Flo) for the corporation."

Nathaniel Borenstein, chief scientist at Mimecast, commented, "Because most people are completely unqualified to judge the underlying technical issues, their trust in various online activities will be shaped by what they're told, i.e., whoever commands the biggest ad budget. That would seem to be good news for the purveyors of online services."

John Howard, creative director at LOOOK, Inc, wrote, "Wireless technology has allowed developing countries and economies to leapfrog infrastructure requirements (power, telecom, banking, etc.). For many in the developing world—as well as those who want to interact with them—the risks are outweighed by the opportunities. As a result, both good and bad actors are drawn to the new opportunities this creates."

Dave Burstein, editor at fastnet.news, replied, "Surveillance is the biggest obstacle to trust. It will increase as countries other than the US deploy the tools. Multinationals like Facebook and Google/Doubleclick will become even more effective at tracking, and they will be ubiquitious,"

Maria Pranzo, director of development at The Alpha Workshops, said, "I suspect that online security will get worse before it gets better. Until an infallible marker is created - facial recognition or fingerprinting (and I can immediately think of the ways those can be hacked - yikes) -- well, something that is mine or yours alone, it feels like the hackers and thieves will always be one step ahead. That said, we're suckers for convenience, and I don't see us going back to in-store banking. And give me Netflix or give me death. "

David Wuertele, a software engineer for a major company innovating autonomous vehicles, commented, "There are different kinds of trust. One kind is the trust you have that comes from knowing that a service is trustworthy, another kind is the trust you must have because there is no other choice. Although I believe most retailers are not capable of keeping my personal data secret, I still am forced to yield my personal data to them. I am forced to 'trust' them, even though I do not 'trust' them. The fallback is the legal system. If a party with whom I perform a transaction betrays my trust, I may be able to recover some damages by suing. It is not a guarantee and is mostly a huge waste of time, but it is a small consolation."

Paul Lehto, author, said, "As awareness grows of threats already extant, trust will diminish, and it is unlikely that economical threat protection will outpace growth in the threats themselves."

David Williams, a respondent who chose not to share any additional identifying information, replied, "If the cost of economic fraud and abuse is born by those companies which control the economic channels, they will be motivated to reduce the fraud and abuse which will increase their customers trust. The banks should bear the burden of fraudulent credit card and NFC transactions rather than the cardholder or the retail businesses. That will motivate the card issuers to improve security for their customers. Cell phones are likely to become even more important sources of information, interactions, and commerce. With that, strong encryption will remain important due to the risk off 'everything' being lost if you lose your cell phone. Encryption that promises to remain strong in light of advances in quantum computing will be more important. The challenge to cell phone dominance will likely remain the transactions which really require more screen real estate than anyone is willing to carry in their pocket. There will continue to be efforts to simplify everything down to cell phone-sized chunks; which will reduce the value of some of the current offerings. As folks gradually shift more of their life online (and age into a more pure online world) trust will naturally increase and breaches of that trust will be seen as the cost of living in this century rather than the last. Technology will continue to evolve to gain and hold that trust, and malicious folks will continue to find ways to abuse it. On the whole, I expect the malicious folks will be gradually diminished in their abilities to leverage purely technological attacks."

Stephen Schultz, a respondent who chose not to share any additional identifying information, wrote, "My answer is really fence-sitting. Payment systems via smartphone will become as common as consumer credit within the next four years, and, with it, public trust in those systems. Also, I see the principles of encryption becoming common knowledge in the near but indeterminate future and with it, an increase in public trust generalized to any system transmitting or retaining personal information. I don't feel nearly as confident making any such predictions for medical care and personal medical histories. In smaller nation-states, especially those with single-payer medical care, the implementation of a portable, accessible personal medical record is already within reach. At the other extreme (i.e., the U.S.), there are some startups with a mission to achieve the same thing (e.g., Ohio-based CrossChx), but I imagine it would have to be some kind of open standard in order to work, and that process will almost certainly take several years."

Cindy Cohn, executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote, "The pressure to build a more-secure Internet and tools will build both in the public and corporate sphere. The government will be unsuccessful in efforts to reduce [individuals'] security and the result will be that more people will, rightfully, trust in the security of their tools. That's the happy story. There's the opposite one, too, though. The direction is up to us."

Frank Elavsky, data and policy analyst at Acumen, commented, "Trust will be strengthened. Unfortunately, this will result in less suspicion where suspicion should be due. But, aside from that, I believe the quality of life will significantly improve in the global context (so long as access to the Internet is not restricted at the national level). Reading levels, political views, and standards of living will grow as access to the Internet increases. I do believe that cultural life will begin to suffer however, because many exclusive cultural ideologies may lose traditions or practices as access to the Internet grows. The impact will be globally more positive, but trust-strengthening could result in vulnerable populations being taken advantage of. Regarding blockchain systems: I feel as though the incredible integrity of blockchain systems could lead to serious problems for people in power who commit regular, unsavory acts within the world of finance. Because of this, I think the result could be very good for the majority of people or it could be very bad (people in power tend to manipulate systems to their benefit)."

Glenn Grossman, product manager at a technology firm, wrote, "With more maturity devices and platforms will become more trusted and secure. The ease of use and reliable nature will drive more adoption."

Kevin Novak, CEO of 2040 Digital, replied, "Trust will increase as the variety of age groups become comfortable with conducting transactions via mobile or other interfaces. Health care will most likely benefit the most, as health care professionals and their patients recognize the value of telemedicine as effective and efficient health care. We are all changing our thoughts and concepts around the definition of 'place' and 'physical,' and we will be more willing, open, and trusting to receive services that help us solve our problems or needs in the most efficient and effective way."

Robert Bell, co-founder of the Intelligent Community Forum, responded, "The word 'trust' is misused here. I don't think anyone will become more trusting of online systems—they just will not be able to function well without them. One place where trust does function is in e-government. At the community level, governments have the chance to build more effective, trusted relationships with their constituents by offering transparent, easy-to-use services and access to useful information."

Stuart Shulman, CEO of Texifter, wrote, "We have all created gaping holes in our privacy in exchange for convenience, happiness, economic gain, self-promotion, affection, and certain kinds of indulgence. Most people would not willingly create such gaping holes if they did not believe, at some level, what is lost pales in comparison to what is gained."

Miles Fidelman, a systems architect and policy analyst at the Protocol Technologies Group and president of The Center for Civic Networking, wrote, "People seem to have an inordinate willingness to trust systems. This seems to stem from both a willingness to defer to authority and the human tendency to turn a blind eye to issues in favor of convenience. At the same time, experience generally breeds a level of cynicism. The result seems to be that people 'don't trust anyone, but do it anyway.' And then lurch from crisis to crisis. (Example, credit cards and passwords get leaked daily—we still use them with impunity.)"

Gus Hosein, executive director at Privacy International, commented, "Trust has to be strengthened or none of this will happen. We will develop stronger security mechanisms, at the expense of income streams (e.g., advertising) and surveillance (e.g., use of encryption will become more dominant). I'm saying that quite optimistically because we won't have all the pretty things unless we sort out the security and individual control issues. Oh, stop talking about blockchains—it's just the latest in the trend of 'tech X shall solve woe Alpha'. We have the knowledge and the capabilities with technologies that have been around for years but a lack of imagination and political understanding has inhibited useful dispersion."

Adrian Hope-Bailie, standards officer at Ripple, replied, "The technology advancements that are happening today are beginning to bring together disparate but related fields such as finance, identity, health care, education, and politics. It's only a matter of time before some standards emerge that bind the ideas of identity and personal information with these verticals such that it becomes possible to share and exchange key information, as required, and with consent to facilitate much stronger trusted relationships between users and their service providers."

Timothy C. Mack, managing principal at AAI Foresight, wrote, "The question is not so much areas of life, but geographic areas. Africa and, in some lesser part, South America, will see a great deal of growth in the economic arena, especially where previous economic structures were rudimentary. We have already seen the growth of political and civic life (especially in South Korea) through smartphones etc. and health care is now ramping up as well, especially in Africa. Cultural life not so much. And of course the growth of language-training apps is just the first step to regional or even global digital-education systems. The trust issue will have to be resolved in the arena of 'hard knocks' and is likely to be quite brutal before viable solutions are established."

Valerie Bock, VCB Consulting, said, "We will learn how to secure our critical infrastructure, and in the meantime we are learning how to hold consumers harmless for the breaches that occur within our current systems. The benefits of being able to loan an e-book to a new friend instantaneously to keep a conversation going, the ability to shop the world for things there is only a small market for, the ability to transfer value at low cost, and the ability to access the latest scientific information, all offer powerful ways to connect people to one another and hence enhance trust."

Richard J. Perry, a respondent who did not share other identifying background, said, "Trust takes a back seat to convenience for most."

Ian Peter, an Internet pioneer and historian based in Australia, wrote, "Trust is currently rather low and I expect it to stay that way, while, paradoxically, usage is likely to rise dramatically. Despite their mistrust, people are likely to give more weight to the convenience of online transactions than they to do the risks involved."

Richard Adler, distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future, observed, "Technologies such as biometrics, encryption, digital IDs, blockchain, and smart contracts are emerging that can enhance security and build trust. But they are in a race with darker forces who continue to become more effective in breaching security measures. We need to get serious about creating a truly secure Internet if it is to realize the potential for empowering a big portion of the world."

Brian Behlendorf, executive director of the Hyperledger Project at the Linux Foundation, said, "The net effect will be positive, as the greater use of blockchain technolgy to tie together the systems of the world outweighs the ever-present concern over the security and sanctity of individual systems."

Randy Bush, research fellow at Internet Initiative Japan and a member of the Internet Hall of Fame, wrote, "Given that there will be less and less alternatives to electronic paths to daily transactions, people will have no choice but to 'trust' them. But they will remain nervous, with justification."

David Karger, professor of computer science at MIT, commented, "We've seen tremendous growth in use of these online tools, so it is natural to assume it will continue. Your specific question of trust is a complicated one. On the one hand, I believe that we are just at the beginning of development of good online tools and I expect significant improvement—even over the next 10 years—that will draw more users to these better tools. On the flip side, I at least hope that people will become generally more educated about the risks and limitations of online interactions, which may lead to a certain healthy distrust even as usage becomes more widespread."

Nick Tredennick, a technology analyst, said, "Historically, net contributions are positive, so adding more people and more interactions will bring greater trust capabilities to interactions."

Cory Doctorow, writer, computer science activist-in-residence at MIT Media Lab and co-owner of Boing Boing, responded, "The increased impoverishment/immiseration of larger and larger segments of society thanks to mounting wealth inequality will drive more reliance on informal networks, barter, sharing, etc., that will be enabled through online activity."

Karl M. van Meter, sociological researcher and director of the Bulletin of Methodological Sociology, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris, said, "Social network analysis, which was well-established before cell phones came on the scene, has clearly shown that our social media environment is very similar to our personal environment. The people we meet the most often are also the people we exchange with the most often by technical means, be they friends, doctors, grocers, family members, etc. See the work of, for example, Barry Wellman."

Garland McCoy, president of the Technology Education Institute. "We have reached critical mass of social acceptance of the Internet as a platform for commerce, education, and social engagement, and peer-to-peer familiarity will help ensure robust adaption and utilization. The Internet is like sex education; you get it through your friends."

Jim Hendler, a professor of computer science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, replied, "The issue isn't areas of application, but the socio-technical issue of the trust of users in the technology. Given that young children now increasingly have access to smart phones and computing, that access is becoming more ubiquitous, and that the use of these is increasing in all population sectors, it is clear that the generation growing up as 'social machine natives' (like digital natives, but more embedded in the social fabric) will age without the distrust their grandparents and parents may have had. Technologies like blockchain and etc. are enablers, but much as modern drivers have more trust in their vehicles without knowing how the engines function, social machine natives will trust their ubiquitously connected environment without needing to know the implementation details."

Charles Perkins, senior principal engineer at a wireless and wire line networking company, said, "Health care and entertainment by sharing videos, audios, pictures. Politics benefits by easily accessible data and answers to misinformation."

Garth Graham, board member at Telecommunities Canada, commented, "Trust will only be strengthened when my digital identity is owned by me as a matter of right."

David Banks, co-editor of Cyborgology, said, "Trust in institutions are at an all-time low, and it does not seem clear to me at all that digital technologies will improve this situation. Trust is a social problem and overall degrees of trust in institutions will only change to the degree that technologies present a kind of stability or some other version of trustworthiness."

Ed Dodds, a digital strategist, commented, "Ransomware will diminish trust. Blockchain may be used for open data driven public policy if the Data Transparency Coalition efforts are successful. (i)XBRL and smart contracts may reside in both public and private chains."

Jan Schaffer, executive director at J-Lab, replied, "It just appears that anyone and anything can be hacked and likely will be eventually. It's hard to figure out how to put that trust back in the bottle."

Joel Barker, futurist and author at Infinity Limited, wrote, "The opportunities for mischief are enormous. Certain activities will have to stay very local and even face-to-face because of the more-sophisticated spoofing that will be developed."

Ray Schroeder, associate vice chancellor for online learning at the University of Illinois, Springfield, observed, "Online interactions will become the default norm; it will be as comfortable and considered as reliable as a visit to the bank in the 1980s; an in-person visit to a doctor in the 1990s; or an in-person purchase at a grocery store in the first decade of the 21st century. Elections will be conducted online resulting in greater participation and a more complete canvassing of the public. Blockchain architecture networking will enable students to assemble custom degrees and certificates with online courses and competency assessments collected from a wide variety of sources."

Ebenezer Baldwin Bowles, editor at The Indie Tribune, wrote, "Trust will be strengthened, but it will be blind trust enforced by the ceaseless demands of The System, hell-bent to drive everyone online. 'Resistance is futile,' the alien superpower said to the altruistic starship captain. Resistance to the interests of the corporate state will be futile if one wants to participate in the commonplace activities of household management and personal finances, or seek diagnosis and treatment from medical practitioners, or pass a bricks-and-mortar course in high school or university."

Tse-Sung Wu, a project portfolio manager at Genentech, said, "As long as access to and innovation in the Internet and related devices remains relatively unfettered, it is likely more and more interactions will be mediated by these devices. All kinds of commerce, the provision of services and goods, health care, the sharing of ideas, teaching, leisure/entertainment, etc. Where it will break down is when we try to replicate a face-to-face interaction online but underestimate the breadth and depth of the face-to-face interaction. Technology is inherently reductionist, and we have many examples where this has failed us, or worse, it has failed us but we don't notice it till too late. Environmental crises are a perfect example: technology mediates our relationship with the natural world, leading us to underestimate its value to our way of life. We have now evolved into a relationship with the natural world that is unsustainable, and this happened in part because technology has numbed us to signals that otherwise would have informed us to act differently. Online technology, insofar as it permeates all the spheres of human interaction, will likely do the same. The creation of online communities where people still feel lonely; the illusion of choice of the many potential dating/life partners, yet people stay single: many such contradictions will continue to abound because of reductionist, incomplete understanding of human interactions that form the basis of the technologies intended to replace them."

Alexander Halavais, director, of the master's in social technologies program at Arizona State University, wrote, "The process of globalization has often been seen as one related largely to politics and technologies of transportation. In practice, we have already moved beyond this. Distance is almost certainly not dead, particularly when it comes to traditional cultural exchanges. However, especially in spaces of economic and commercial exchanges, as well as in some cultural institutions (those that throughout history have been tied to cosmopolitanism), distance will quickly become less important to interactions. Especially in places where mobile devices have provided an opportunity to 'leapfrog' into the information age, we will see the effects of distributed services make interactions across languages and cultures far more common. Trust will be baked into the system."

Bernardo A. Huberman, senior fellow and director of the Mechanisms and Design Lab at HPE Labs, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, replied, "Unless people learn of a big breach in security at a level that affects them, they will continue to trust blindly the new technology, mostly because of their ignorance of how intrusive it is."

Stephen Downes, researcher at National Research Council Canada, wrote, "We experience many reasons to distrust our interactions, and traditional media are reporting numerous cases where they should be distrusted, so we think rising distrust is the norm, and yet on a personal basis, as time goes by, we are more and more trusting. People who did not even know people in other countries, much less trust them, now travel half way around the world to participate in conferences, rent and live in their homes, meet on a date, participate in events, and more. Sure, things like catfishing are problems. But the exception is a problem only in the light of the trust that is the rule (Wittgenstein: a rule is shown by its exceptions) People who did not trust online retail a decade ago now purchases games, music and media on a regular basis (they're still a bit wary of deliveries from China, but they're coming around to it). People who did not trust online banking a decade ago now find it a much more convenient and inexpensive way to pay their bills. They also like the idea that their credit cards are now protected. People who were sceptical of online learning a decade ago now like in an era when, in some programs, some online learning is required, and where there is no real distinction (and no way to distinguish) between an online or offline degree (and meanwhile, millions of people flood in to take MOOCs). We can see where this trend is heading by looking at a few edge cases. For example: what would we say of a pilot that never trained in a simulator? What would we say of a lawyer who did not rely on data search, indexing and retrieval services? We trust them more in the future because they are taking advantage of advanced technology to support their work. It seems like less trust, but it's more trust. When we hear only one voice, we trust that voice. When we hear many voices, we trust that one voice less. As we should. And it feels like less trust, But we trust all of those voices, and the overall solidity of our information, more. Feels like less, but it is actually more."

Dariusz Jemielniak, professor of management at Kozminski University and Wikimedia Foundation Trustee, "Brick-and-mortar services will cease to exist to a large extent."

Ed Lyell, professor of business and economics at Adams State University, wrote, "Security is the key to which direction we go in trusting transactions to electronic form. Passwords are mostly inefficient, especially since to be safe they become so complicated as to frustrate the user. Biometrics are likely to give us more security with less effort. As these emerge, and work, trust will expand and commerce of many types will expand online. It may also be necessary to move toward global policing and significant enforcement. This is the weak link in the chain since all too many nation states participate in as well as harbor the online thief's. Like tax evasion it will take a global response, which is not likely in the near term."

Christopher Owens, a community college professor, observed, "This is a paradox. Trust will be diminished, but the use of online banking and shopping will continue to increase. As online shopping and banking becomes more and more commonplace just about everyone who uses these services will at one point or another will have to deal with some act of fraud or identity theft."

Andrias Yose, a freelancer, wrote, "The areas of life experiencing the greatest impact in regard to trust will be communication, interaction, communal bonding. The impacts will not be mostly positive or negative. They will swing from positive to negative to positive continuously, or new/hybrid negatives/positives will surface that will be countered by the opposite. The spread of blockchain systems will increase the frequency of and create a significant time reduction for communication to reach a target or targets."

Don Philip, retired lecturer, observed, "There will be problems. Systems will be hacked and sensitive information will be leaked. This will affect any area in which there is sensitive information: education, health, finances, and many more. Despite the negative impacts, the majority of people will want to use such online interactions because of the convenience and ease of use. This will apply particularly to the elderly who will appreciate the convenience of not having to go out in bad weather, etc. Blockchain is a bit of a wildcard here. It's a new technology and the banks are watching it closely. I would expect that banks will be among the principal users and providers of blockchain-managed transactions, partly because they have already gained people's trust in financial transactions."

Alan Cain, a respondent who shared no identifying background, said, "So, privacy is an outlandish and an historical phenomenon, eh? Who defines trust, and who is the fox guarding us chickens? The vision of the future will be bleak for most folks."

Shawn Otto, organizational executive, speaker, and writer with ScienceDebate.org, commented, "We are still at the early stages in understanding the vulnerabilities created by bringing the world online. As they become more clear via painful experience, trust will likely diminish somewhat."

James McCarthy, a manager, wrote, "It will be diminished. The information described in this question is incredibly valuable, both in legal and illegal capacities. It's vulnerable to theft and exploitation. Unless they manage to find a holy grail that effectively precludes unauthorized decryption—which is unlikely—personal and consumer data will always be at risk, and the lines between what is personal and public information will keep blurring."

Chris Zwemke, a Web developer, said, "Trust will smartly decline. Distrust in systems is healthy. Activity might increase, but trust will not, and more double-checking will occur."

Yar Quasar, a businessman, observed, "Trust will decrease as knowledge of the risks grows and as people's lives get ruined by trust. However, this will not slow adoption since it will become untenable to live outside the new system."

Raymond Plzak, former CEO of a major regional Internet governance organization, commented, "Trust will be diminished. It is eroding now. There are too many instances of abuse and misuse today."

Laurie Orlov, a principal analyst, replied, "We are entering an era in which the lack of vetting of cell phone applications and the sheer volume of new ones will result in mistrust of all apps. And the most vulnerable users will be those who trust but do not protect their identity, monitor the settings, and update regularly for security fixes."

Lauren Wagner, a respondent who shared no additional identifying details, wrote, "Data breaches will decrease trust in online interactions. We're already seeing a rise in data breaches in the healthcare sector and now in the political sphere, with the summer 2016 hacking of US Democratic National Committee emails. While systems will be created to improve online security, large data breaches will likely diminish the effects of these developments. The blockchain will play an increasingly larger role in securing online systems, especially in banking."

Ben Shneiderman, professor of computer science at the University of Maryland, commented, "Trust is essential to success of online systems. Clearly identified responsible parties should be available to answer user questions, deal with errors/failures, and promote continuous improvement. Public presentations of the number of fraudulent translations, criminal attacks, malicious uses, etc., should be available, just as police crime data or airline delays are public. The ombudsman idea, Better Business Bureau, and public defenders need to be expanded for online systems."

Adam Nelson, CTO of Factr, said, "Economic activity will become much more efficient and secure. Keep in mind that the 'analog' economy with cash is also encumbered by theft and fraud. These won't go away but the frequency will be lessened. Government/public oversight will be higher, though.”

Will Kent, e-resources staff member at Loyola University-Chicago, wrote, "People will become more accustomed to blockchain pay systems. Soon they will become integrated into more-traditional pay systems and no one will bat an eye. Regardless of how technology will impact these activities, users will find comfort in their convenience. Safety will be improved for mass consumption with an 'acceptable' number of compromised accounts, passwords, zero day exploits, keeping developers, companies, and users on their toes. I should clarify that just because people trust their interactions doesn't mean their interactions will be what they want them to be. Based on the last question about algorithms and another question about privacy, as a society we are not at a point to critique these systems on this level. People will trust it because it gets them what they want—not because the system is set up to benefit or protect them. A conversion of virtual to physical interactions will help bolster this trust. Take Uber for example. Summoning a stranger with your phone to have them drop you off where you live would have been ridiculous a decade ago. The more successful trip rideshares have been  the more trustworthy they have become (bad trips becoming relegated to the realm of 'outlier' and 'unavoidable given the scale of demand'). The same is true of Amazon, Craigslist, and every job board. Message boards for health issues or social issues will also increase in cultural importance as people more freely communicate and discover friends or communities of interest through these platforms. Phones will act as this bridge from the virtual to the real—essentially that technology everyone was talking about that would be embedded under ours skins. They will alert us or we will use them to find what we want regarding all of the activities listed in this discussion prompt. There is no reason to think that a tool that provides this much convenience will diminish trust to the majority of users."

John B. Keller, director of eLearning at the Metropolitan School District of Warren Township, said, "I would expect growing trust among users of technology because many of the benefits that technology promises are not afforded without commensurate trust."

Dan Molina, coordinator of special projects for the World Business Academy and former NBC News correspondent, commented, "The Internet is a reflection of our character and intentions as people. It does not increase or decrease our propensity to positive or negative purposes. It is another tool, as were the wheel, the telephone, the typewriter, and various devices in earlier eras. The differences now are the immediacy of access and the fact that technology abolishes geographical boundaries. So we are forced to confront a global mix of realities that vary widely.  We are forced, in some cases, to deal with continuously insidious behavior and facts outside of our everyday thinking. The Internet and media technology can and will, as always, be used for anything. This can be the highest of purposes—education, information, illumination, as entertainment and a means of social interaction. It can also be used for crime and to serve the abominable instincts of human nature. The flaw is our regarding these things with indifference.  Each expansion of our capabilities requires more of us. Of course we can use it productively, and of course it will be a method of proliferating the worst in human nature. As always, we must relish, celebrate, and encourage the best of these opportunities and fight the worst as best we can. Like it or not, we have a lot of new neighbors, like great-grandma on her party line."

Mike Warot, machinist at Allied Gear, said, "Kids don't have the reference we old farts have, they don't understand the real-world implications of things, but then again, they will shape a society that doesn't have our hang-ups either. New norms will eventually dominate; blind trust in technology is going to be one of them. It's foolish, from my perspective, but they'll do it anyway. You know, it doesn't have to be this way. It is possible to actually fix computer security so that all this stuff can't be hacked anywhere so easily, thus increasing the herd immunity of things. It's called Capability-Based Security, and the idea is that you never let your computer blindly trust the program you want to run. It's not mainstream, but should be in 10 to 20 years. Until then, we're fucked."

Stephan G. Humer, head of the Internet sociology department at Hochschule Fresenius in Berlin, wrote, "People's trust will be strengthened because we see a ongoing spread of digitization throughout the world and a growing knowledge regarding the importance of dealing with digitization. New players will arise, new forms of digitization will be shaped, but there is one area of life which truly makes a difference: culture. The more we have a fully digital culture, the better it will be for trust, for privacy, and for society in general. Trust cannot be built through technology. Trust is a social issue. "

Theo Armour, coder, said, "I trust a candle and a match more than I trust a light bulb and a power company. But I can do a lot more with the latter. And my trust becomes more informed and increasingly nuanced the more I use the transformed, transported power."

Ian O'Byrne, co-founder of BadgeChain, replied, "Over the coming decade we will be forced to identify, on a granular basis, the role and function of aspects of trust. Trust is the grease that holds our society together. Trust is evidenced when we drive down the street and expect oncoming cars to stay in their lanes. Trust in digital spaces will increasingly have as much of an effect on our well-being as the analogy of the car driver, but it won't seem as dire of a consequence for now. But, as we increasingly pour much of our identity in online spaces, and trust the businesses and governments that oversee these spaces, we'll have questions about how specific that trust is. As breaches of this trust and the acts of whistleblowers opens our eyes to issues of trust, it is my hope that Web-literate citizens speak up and determine their own determination of the value and currency of this trust."

Isto Huvila, professor at Uppsala University, wrote, "Trust will be strengthened even if there would be no real reason for an increased trust as more and more interactions will take place online. People will have no alternative but to trust in things that make their everyday life work for them. But, on a larger scale, trustworthy and traceable technologies will have an impact and could play a major role in increasing the trust between those actors who operate online, and between the society and the actors who provide online services. If we can trust in a systemic and systematic sense in online technologies and services, they can really replace others not only in technical sense but also as a basis of how people interact with each other and remember things, and as a baseline of how things are supposed to work. This is unlikely to happen during the next ten years, but trust in the digital is slowly becoming the new default unless something very dramatic happens that would essentially make online interactions impossible for a time."

Marshall Kirkpatrick, co-founder of Little Bird, previously with ReadWriteWeb and TechCrunch, replied, "There is a clear path from less to more familiarity with new platforms. Carrying out many social functions by mobile device ID is quickly becoming the new normal."

Marc Brenman, managing partner at IDARE, LLC, said, "Trust will be strengthened because people won't have a choice; it will be use the systems or nothing. There will be great impacts on national security (negatively), on personal finance, on privacy (negatively), on politics (coarsening)."

Mary Griffiths, associate professor in media at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, commented, "The mobile users I surveyed recently in two Australian cities noted security of information and lack of privacy as major concerns which affected decisions on the use of apps. Others noted the smart phone's locative functionality as something they did not particularly like. This suggests that increased surveillance of the individual by parties unknown is a continuing concern. Some respondents spoke about their trust that if something 'went wrong,' it would be fixed by responsible agencies. My view is that while a significant number will opt out in future, many will accept change and expect problems to be worked out by regulatory bodies as development occurs. They will create the pressure for accountable systems."

Sam Punnett, research officer at TableRock Media, replied, "These activities have become integral to people's lives. They are destined to become even moreso, as institutions incorporate them for a variety of motives. There will be an increasing awareness that systems show their shortcomings periodically but people will likely keep believing that compromise of these systems is what happens to other people. Institutions will continue to move to automated interactions/transactions, assessing benefits to themselves versus risk analysis of encountering catastrophe. Of course it often takes a catastrophe to reveal errors in the risk analysis."

Laurent Schüpbach, a neuropsychologist at the University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland, said, "I've already seen so many scandals—from Edward Snowden to password leaks to privacy negligence on Facebook—that I can't imagine what more is needed so that people start to realise that security and privacy online is a big deal. Trust is given as far as everyone is using it. But, as most companies and governments profit from the overall ignorance on these matters, nothing will improve. Most new technologies and devices are marketed as more practical (easy to use) and rarely as more secure (more complicated)."

LT Wilson, a respondent who shared no additional identifying details, commented, "All dimensions of life are affected. And, in a reinforcing way, expectations and behaviors shift to align with the ubiquitousness. It seems that blockchain and Ethereum will help ensure encrypted, authentic history of much more than financial transactions."

Dave Howell, a senior program manager in the telecommunications industry, replied, "Convenience will outweigh distrust, and today's ten year olds will have grown up with the same easy familiarity with blockchain and algorithmic identity their parents did with DVD and cellphones, and their grandparents did with TV, jet travel, and automobiles. Location-based services will inundate these kids with offers; they'll learn to ignore them. Parents will get headaches and be frustrated while kids will skip along. Healthcare? Maybe not in the next decade but within the next three will see huge efforts to automate it to reduce costs. Blockchain and algorithms had better be bulletproof in identifying persons, and trusted records kept inviolate."

John Anderson, director of journalism and media studies at Brooklyn College, said, "I am not sure there is an adequate answer to be had given the phrasing of the question. Trust is something that can only be developed by an informed populace. Most people have not been adequately informed about how Internet technologies work to properly assess their risks and rewards. When is the last time you fully read a terms-of-service document? That said, there are also many unknowns over the next 10 years that could greatly enhance or diminish trust. On the positive side, new security technologies may harden networks, pushing online transactions to near-ubiquity. On the negative side, cyberwarfare/cybercrime or even terrorism utilizing electromagnetic pulse devices may shake our network infrastructures to their cores or even destroy them, waking people up to the real fragility of the digital world."

Aidan Hall, head of user experience at TomTom Sports, wrote, "Trust and complacency will both increase as less expert users become more dominant in the user base. Organisations that create good and trusted customer experiences will survive. The CX laggards and smaller players will struggle to survive."

Lisa Heinz, a doctoral student at Ohio University, said, "I do not believe use of the Internet is a 'trust' issue, so it will not be any more a factor in coming years than it is now. The move toward mobile as the primary method of access to the Internet in rural areas, however, will continue to expand if Internet companies make that access more available and less expensive. Right now, that is not happening in the United States, an unfortunate aspect of the digital divide. Economic disparity will deepen without wireless access to the internet... Combined with the high cost of mobile access and the movement of basic services to cloud-based systems, we will find that nearly 30% of the population will be left further behind unless a renewed focus on rural access, both technical and financial, to true broadband becomes a reality."

Luis Lach, president of the Sociedad Mexicana de Computación en la Educación, A.C., replied, "When digital photography invaded our lives 20 years ago, we refused to accept that the image in paper would be no longer relevant for our lives. In the beginning, young people became active members and adults were more reluctant to adapt to new change. The important thing is, with the passage of time we don´t recall what was ancient photography. The change was done. The same thing is happening with digital transactions. We are suspicious of frauds, cyber attacks over our sensitive personal and financial information, but we are starting to accept that it is safer most of the time. The big challenge is to really have safe procedures over our financial records and personal information. The same principle applies over other areas: health care, education, etc."

Matt Bates, programmer and concept artist at Jambeeno Ltd., commented, "It will remain mostly the same but if it trends either direction it will probably be diminished simply because of two effects: 1) people always discount positive effects on their lives and overestimate negative effects; and 2) online activity can have large effects on one's life, both positive and negative. Shopping (economic activity) will probably precipitate the most drastic shift in many peoples' online lives as inevitable security breaches continue to negatively affect millions (eventually billions) of lives. People will dramatically discount the untold hundreds or thousands of remarkably-easy transactions they've made in the past and will focus heavily on the one time their credit information was swiped by unsavory criminals. On blockchain technology, I don't know. I suspect it might have a great positive effect on, e.g., transparent corporate and government auditing practices."

Dudley Irish, a software engineer, said, "I don't foresee any reason that my level of trust will change. If trust goes down, the corporations will introduce security improvements, if trust goes up, they will reduce them. So, short of some kind of social change the level of trust will not change."

Jennifer Zickerman, an entrepreneur, commented, "Trust will stay about the same—low. We continue to use devices and services that put our privacy and economic security at risk, lamenting the risk and paying for it indirectly (bank and credit card fees, etc.). The technology industry has failed dramatically in providing secure mechanisms for data transfer and storage. It is astonishing to me that they are not held accountable for their failures. There will probably be several large-scale security meltdowns with more-immediate consequences that will make people demand improvements. However, systems are so fragmented and ill-designed that there will only be grand pronouncements (by companies and governments) and temporary solutions, leading to an even bigger hodge-podge of draconian front-end security mechanisms while still tolerating security holes in the back end that you could drive a tank through."

Peggy O'Kane, coordinator for Maine's State Library, observed, "The more we know about how data is collected and used the scarier it becomes. We should each be making a conscious decision about how much we share and with whom we share it. But the trustworthiness of individuals and institutions has not changed. The Internet did not invent evil or good. It just made it easier to act on a global scale."

Stewart Dickson, digital sculpture pioneer, noted, "I'm frankly surprised at the statistic quoted here. Peer influence will increase trust."

Julie Gomoll, CEO at Julie Gomoll Inc., commented, "We'll keep trusting, and trusting more, even if we shouldn't, because we can't bear the idea of giving up our digital transactions. We're stubborn that way."

Jeff Kaluski, a respondent who chose not to share more identifying details, observed, "Security and trust are becoming a 'thing.' It's about time, and the average user will start to ensure transactions are secure. Once it becomes ubiquitous and obvious, transactions will increase because trust can be forged faster."

Tony Pichotta, creative director at Recess Creative, replied, "Overall trust in online interactions will be strengthened because the lack of alternatives. Systemic technologies will shape the masses, leaving the dissenters out in the wilderness."

Tom Ryan, CEO of eLearn Institute, Inc., replied, "'Trust' is neither the inhibitor nor driver for adoption of online interactions. Convenience will drive adoption. For example, motor vehicle deaths in the US reached as high as 51,091 in 1980 and still remain over 30,000 deaths annually yet the number of vehicles registered in the US continues to grow. People accept the life-or-death consequences of driving for the convenience it provides. I recognize the threat that a hacker and some businesses may pose through Internet access of my health and financial data, but the convenience and benefit I perceive keeps me online."

Bart Knijnenburg, assistant professor in human-centered computing at Clemson University, responded, "I don't think online threats will diminish—in fact, they will likely increase—but users will be increasingly required to interact online. As they become more familiar with this, their trust will increase. Secure technologies will not do much to increase trust, because most people simply don't understand them. They will just run in the background."

Dan McGarry, media director at the Vanuatu Daily Post, wrote, "Trust will change in its nature. It will no longer be invested so much in systems and institutions as in individuals. Relationships will matter. On the negative side, much behaviour will be defined by allegiance, which will allow some actors to motivate significant numbers to act against their own interests at times. The human capacity to invest trust in others won't change unless we undergo significant evolutionary change."

Adrian Schofield, applied research manager, commented, "Adrian Schofield: Urban dwellers will use more e-commerce, e-retail, e-services products for convenience and speed of service. Rural dwellers will use more e-health, e-education, e-government products. My personal view is that blockchain systems will not become mainstream within 10 years, due to a combination of vested interests in the existing currency markets and lack of trust in the new system."

Paul Davis, a director based in Australia, observed, "The drift to digital-first engagement will certainly benefit anything which is transactional in nature, across most services. Trust will continue to develop, and mitigations put in place post significant breaches of that trust. The digital self will play an ever-increasing role in political and civic life; with that self eventually merging with the whole; whereby people who reject their digital identity become today's 'hippies.' There will be a social cost to not being 'online,' potentially increasing discrimination in some areas; however the overall benefits will grow through greater accessibility.”

Matt Mathis, a respondent who shared no other identifying details, said, "It depends on other changes necessary to strengthen Internet security. Today most people are still using operating systems that should not be trusted for financial transactions, period, and their fears are completely justified. This and many other problems can be addressed by the forced retirement of insecure systems that can't ever be secured."

Joan Noguera, professor at the University of Valencia Institute for Local Development in Spain, replied, "The possibilities that current technology offers for online interaction are already tremendous. There are, of course, threats and challenges to be tackled. However, considering the evolution that technology can have over the next 10 years, I have no doubt that connectivity and interaction through mobile devices will grow at a high rate. The issues of access to SGI is a fundamental one that can do a lot for improving regional development and equilibrium by granting innovative solutions for accessing to basic public services online. Some experiences in this field are already relevant in countries with problems of ageing population and depopulation of rural areas like Finland or Sweden. Also in the cities the progress of technology in connectivity will mean positive impacts in the degree of congestion of public services (health, social security, etc.) and a capacity to reduce the costs of provision."

Dave Kissoondoyal, CEO of KMP Global Ltd., responded, "Technology will evolve as such that people will trust online interactions more than today. It is technology itself that will bring this trust and more and more people will interact online than anything else."

Christine Maxwell, an entrepreneur and program manager of learning technologies at the University of Texas-Dallas, said, "Access to the Internet is seen today as a 'global right.' People will be more connected and more reliant on the Internet than ever. Areas of greatest impact will include eHealth, where it will be positive in many respects but dangerous from a privacy point of view. Economic activity will continue to expand exponentially. Education will continue to grow exponentially at all levels. However, helping the public to be able to recognize 'provenance' and be aware of bias will be essential to making careful choices about what to access, etc."

Hume Winzar, associate professor in business at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, wrote, "Governments and financial companies want their systems to secure and transparent so they will work hard to make them so. This will relieve people's concerns. Also, many services will be simply unavailable except online, so people will have to trust them whether they're skeptical or not.”

Ben Railton, a professor of English and American studies at Fitchburg State University, commented, "Our use and familiarity will grow, and with them a sense of trust or at least instinctive reliance. But threats will continue to grow, especially those related to cyber-terrorism and hacking, and so it will be impossible not to fear such threats."

Polina Kolozaridi, a researcher at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, noted, "I answered 'Trust will be strengthened,' but it is more complicated. There are as of yet no other mediums to trust. But I am sure that trust in online interactions will not be anything different from the offline."

Peter Levine, Lincoln Filene professor and associate dean for research at Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University, said, "I suspect that people will gain trust in electronic tools, per se, so that more people will be willing to bank, vote, shop, etc. online. But distrust in the underlying institutions continues to grow, and I am not particularly optimistic that it will change."

Glen Thomas, a head of computing in an educational setting, commented, "My students do not care for online security, so there is implicit trust throughout the younger generation. They just want the features and companies and governments can do what they wish with their data. There will be issues when bulk medical data makes its way to employers and insurance companies."

Karel Kerstiens, retired from the US Air Force, wrote, "There is a certain balance on the Internet of 'good versus evil' in reference to technology. I was on the Internet back when Google indicated there were less than 5,000 websites indexed. The balance of 'good versus evil' technology back then seems to be roughly the same today. This strongly indicates to me that the future balance between the good actors and the bad actors should closely remain the same as it is today."

Janice R. Lachance, interim president and CEO of the Better Business Bureau Institute for Marketplace Trust, said, "All of these areas will be impacted, mostly for the positive. Blockchain, crowdsourcing, and the increased miniaturization of devices and tools will dramatically increase access to trusted networks and services. For example, people in remote locations won't have to travel to banks to cash checks or pay fees for wire transfers. Those services can come to them, as can critical health services. The Internet will continue to change the world for the better, in ways both dramatic and unknown at this time. The potential is limitless."

John Laprise, founder of the Association of Internet Users, observed, "Trust consists of saying what you are going to do and then doing it. The Internet will continue to do that. The question for application and websites is whether they will continue to make security and privacy promises they are unable to keep and thereby lose the trust of their users."

Walter Minkel, a librarian, wrote, "I see lots of older people who do not trust their online interactions (and lots who do), and I see the vast majority of younger people who do (and almost none who don't). This will be true most in economic activity."

Malcolm Pell, IT consultant, said, "To a great extent, this depends on maintaining and enhancing security, availability, and reliability. Any major failures could lead to an overall negative impact."

Erik Anderson, a respondent who did not provide any other identifying details, wrote, "With Identity comes trust. You can't solve online trust issues without identity. However with more online identity come privacy issues. The technology exists to solve these problems but it has been relatively unused and undeployed."

Kjartan Ólafsson, head of the department of social sciences at the University of Akureyri, Iceland, said, "I can't see why an increased number of users should influence trust."

Eric Keller, retired from the US Army, replied, "All of above. Security is the ongoing battle, but the market wants this and incentives are strong for industry to break the code on security. Both creative marketing and the strengthening of online security will gain more trust by people."

Shreedeep Rayamajhi, an activist and blogger, saod, "Yes it will grow as people want more services and benefits. It's not just a want but evolving as a need which provides services and facilities."

Richard Lachmann, a professor of sociology at the University at Albany, replied, "As people use online services more, they will become more confident in them. However, familiarity will undercut by the frequent security breaches."

Luis Miron, a distinguished professor at Loyola University-New Orleans, said, "The issue is not complicated in my mind. I believe—though I lack empirical evidence other than general market trends—that prices will continue to fall for smartphones and other digital platforms. This will increase online consumer participation. With increased usage, consumer expertise and access will expand, and so on."

Irina Shklovski, associate professor at the IT University of Copenhagen, commented, "Trust has little to do with the reasons why people do not use the Internet for shopping, banking, or socializing. Trust is not in 'the internet' anyway but in the entities with whom people interact on the Internet (your bank, your book seller, etc.). As these entities create conditions that make online interactions the most effective way to achieve particular goals, more of such interactions will happen. I am curious as to why 'key social interactions' are part of this list (and what these key interactions are envisioned to be). Arguably, key social interactions happen online all the time but it is hard to identify what these are. How do you know that a conversation in a bar or over messenger is going to be key in advance? At the same time, people will continue to insist on meeting in person but this, once again, has nothing to do with trust in online interactions."

Ida Brandão, an educator, wrote, "The trend will be to use more and more these online facilities for personal convenience. I'm still reluctant to use online banking and I only make small-amount transactions in online shopping, but I'm not a reference. As for education and culture, the Internet and digital tools are nowadays my main devices to work, learn, and enjoy leisure. In political and civic life they are important in sharing viewpoints and subscribing petitions."

Sam Anderson, coordinator of instructional design at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, wrote, "It will be so ubiquitous that it will be like the air we breathe. Bad some days, good others, but not something we consciously interrogate any more."

Vance S. Martin, instructional designer at Parkland College, commented, "I am not sure that 'trust' will actually be strengthened, but use will increase. In order for there to be trust, people would have to actively think about the security of their digital information, and I don't think most people do. My S7 came preloaded with Amazon, Facebook, and my carrier's account software. So there is presumed 'safety' in accessing these on my phone. My wife installs banking software and investment software on her phone as well. We mostly trust the safety of our information, but are also diligent about access and location of our phones. However, I work at a college where I see countless times how students lose their phones which are unlocked; they log in to various sites and never log out: and they get hacked (many times due to the first two points). Perhaps it is blind trust, perhaps it is ignorance of potential threats, but the use of mobile devices for all of young people's interactions is increasing. Could blockchain systems like Bitcoin increase the safety, sure. Could the successful mass use of quantum computing decrease the safety, sure. From surveys on our campus we know that 91% of our students have smart phones, 100% have cellphones of some sort. My guess is that very few of them have thought about security or whether they should actually trust their information's safety."

Megan Browndorf, a staff member at Towson University, said, "Crime will increase. Accidental use and misuse will increase. But that is simply a matter of opportunity and numbers. Overall, we will see the development of the Internet as a space. This means that individuals will become more used to existing on the internet: working, and being, and communicating there. And that is enough to build trust. In the next decade, as the number of adults who do not remember a time before the Internet grows, and the number of individuals with familiarity with the Internet grows it will become a trusted fact of life."

Steven Polunsky, www.spin-salad.com, said, "We will see a convergence of online and real life in this area. In both, people will need to be vigilant about their surroundings, skeptical of strangers, and aware of risks in areas they venture online and off."

Richard Oswald, farmer and writer, replied, "Economic monetary use is at the greatest risk and will remain so. Jesse James robbed people of their money on horseback with a six-shooter. Modern Jesses seek to do the same with worms, viruses, and other as-yet-unforeseen tools."

Barry Chudakov, founder and principal at Sertain Research and StreamFuzion Corp., replied, "Since the vast number of people who use cell phones and the Internet rely on the immediacy and convenience of the experience, those factors will continue to remain paramount. Even in crisis situations around the globe, when cell service is down for some reason, people continue to try to connect—rather than mounting complaints about not trusting the system. While database hacking and identity theft will continue to bedevil users and make headlines, for most of us, convenience and immediacy will continue to far outweigh trust in our online interactions over the next decade. Today the default position of virtually every business is to move online. Try calling an insurance company or an airline to ask a quick question: the queue has moved from outside the store to the 888 number. Online is the new landline and, like the disappearance of Blockbuster and Borders, avenues of interaction with many businesses have simply disappeared.  The result is a default acceptance of that reality. While some may grumble about the impersonal nature of online interactions, most people have little choice but to trust the online experience. If you don’t want to physically visit and buy from a brick and mortar store, what else is there? Most people will say or think: the decision has been made and I wasn’t part of the decision-making. As a result, people’s trust in online interactions will be implicit, unconscious. It is now, and will continue to be, like driving a car on roads where accidents happen regularly. You need to go somewhere so you get in the car, despite traffic and road construction and obstacles and even the danger of accidents. This doesn’t mean you won’t at some point complain about highway congestion; likewise, people will continue to both like the ease of online interactions yet grumble about security, identity chasing, and tracking as they conduct more business than ever in cyberspace. There is no area of life that won’t be affected. Economics, health, education, politics, culture—all are changed by the interaction of devices and the Internet. This is because as people use cell phones and the Internet we have tangibly altered reality. Now—the evergreen place and time of tweets and clicks—has become a tangible thing, a time-space nation unto itself, a place with digital passports and morphing AES-256 encryption passwords. In effect, what’s in front of us has changed—and the tools that have brought us this new now have effected that change. Curiously, for some just being engaged with their communication tool—as we see with people driving and texting—takes them into their own now and can take them out of the world, oblivious to a street they are crossing or unfazed by interrupting any intimacy to answer a text; this all consuming reality can render so-called real life an imposition. The impacts are and will continue to be both positive and negative; this is because the impacts are revolutionary and, again, cannot be contained by binary formulations. This new reality changes our behaviors and especially how we see others and ourselves. Cellphones, smart devices, are now instruments of documentation, and in this measure, are tools of validation. I text, therefore I am. I am here. This is what I saw. I am alive. I am dressed (or undressed) a certain way. “If it’s not on Snapchat (or Instagram or Facebook), it didn’t happen.” No one goes to Paris anymore without ensuring all their friends (read: online network) see it.  The act of showing the act may now be more important than the act itself. This is not inconsequential: crimes that might have gotten a slap on the wrist now send athletes and others to jail or into retirement because a cell phone captured their questionable (or criminal) behaviors. Citizen journalists who witness a disturbance, a shooting, an accident, especially with political overtones, are now not only adjuncts to the news—they are the news. They are bringing us first-hand reports that are raw, unfiltered, and often devoid of context. Yet, the immediacy of these reports—the lack of filter, and often the lack of vetting—is both thrilling and disturbing. We have to construct protocols to respond to this new phenomenon that is changing our sense of reality. So, yes, we will continue to use our cell phones to shop, to bank, to transact. But cell phones have become the new presence: I am not truly present in a given reality, until I broadcast my presence in that reality.  As chaotic as it may be, and as disturbing as the realities they show us, live streaming from cell phones is changing news, political debate, and our sense of what is happening around us. And while the US and many other parts of the world hotly debate who is enfranchised and disenfranchised, cell phones give everyone on any scene a platform to weigh in, to show, to remind, to re-jigger perspective. Pokeman Go and augmented reality (AR) are the latest incarnations of apps that confirm phones as presence. These marry the real world with some imaginary augmentation that comments on or enhances the real world experience. At the same time, cell phones are becoming the new validation. I am me, there is my account, my identity marker, my PIN, my photo. So as we use our phones to bank and shop and buy, we are conflating presence and validation; we are, in a sense, validating our presence in a location, in a reality, and since there are both bio-markers (thumbprints) and code or numbers, we are also conflating identity with binary configurations. Our identity is portable and, with some effort, able to be manipulated, stolen, re-cast, taken from us. Ask anyone who’s had an episode of identity theft how weird it is to plead with authorities to recognize you—as you. The result is that recognition technologies, already gaining sophistication (face recognition, voice recognition, emotion recognition) will increasingly be used to validate what we once thought was obvious and we took for granted: our ability to be ourselves, to be who we are. Authorities can already pore through our device histories to confirm or deny our statements about past activities. There seems to be no limit to how much of ourselves we can port to devices in the name of convenience, so I see no reason to believe that in exchange for access, money, ease, or some other benefit, we will not continue to fill our devices with ever more precise identifying bio-markers that depict our identities and turn these devices into avatars of identity. In other words, the world is in your hand. Your hand reaches into the world, pulls it back through this interface and brings ‘what is’ and ‘what’s going on’ into you, into your body. It would be hard to overstate the importance of this wearable gestural interface. We have been used to seeing ourselves as actors in the world; we will likely struggle to become used to seeing the world and its actors entering us. We will literally be pulling the world into us: like a raging river, a torrent of information will be running through us.

Edward Tomchin, a retiree, said, "I'm 75 and am quite computer-literate and use the Internet for most of my business dealings and social interactions. Being that my self-inflicted disabilities limit my physical ability to interact with life, I am finding that the Internet and computers allow me to live a fuller life than I've ever had, albeit mostly intellectual rather than physical. I have great faith and hope in our species to rise above any and all impediments that may and surely will arise in the future. Our species is extraordinarily remarkable."

If you wish to read the full survey report with analysis, click here:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2016_survey/Trust_in_Internet_Activities.xhtml

To read anonymous survey participants' responses with no analysis, click here:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2016_survey/Trust_in_Internet_Activities_anon.xhtml