In cipherspace, the notion of trust must be reevaluated. Merriam-Webster defines the noun trust as “assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something” and “a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some relationship”. This reliance, this faith, is naturally based on the truster’s ability to ascertain the identity of that which is charged with the trust. When, as in cipherspace, we are forced to acknowledge that identities are transitory and, above all, performed, this notion of trust cannot hold. Since one of the basic tenets of the computer (and indeed of the abstract Turing machine) is the ability of all machines to perform the same operations in an identical manner — an ability fundamental to the very idea of packet-switched networks — we must always assume that the performance of a certain cipher key only indicates the possession of that key. It does not, in fact, indicate that we are communicating with a known party. In no way it implies that we can have this “assured reliance” on their character or truth.

The meatspace notion of trust is thus no longer valid in cipherspace. But how, then, do ciphernauts trust each other? This becomes important when we need to evaluate risks, and when we play sociocyphernetic games. As of now, this is an open question without real answers. And perhaps it is best to let it remain as such. One thing, however, has become very clear: if we are to build a strong, reliable cipherspace we must pick our battles. Any situation in cipherspace that can be recast as a game theory scenario in which the identity and trust of the participants is necessary (e.g. the prisoner’s dilemma) should be seen as an error in the network, a mode of communication that should not appear. To be sure, this is a bleak picture we’re painting, but perhaps we need to abandon all ordinary social notions of trust in order to discover what it means to trust someone in cipherspace.

Perhaps we need to re-imagine cipherspace as the post-social.