[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Knowing the source means you can check if it
is a "qualified" source. This is part of
contracting and may or may not be something
used to assert the truthfulness of content.
It can mean the qualified authority authorized
the transaction.
It can be used as a way of qualifying a set
of transactions, checking for security
permissions, etc. In general, it is useful.
It does not assert the veracity of content.
GIGO is true for any transaction.
I don't trust Bush out of the box either,
but given an executive order, I'd feel better
about following it. That's the way the system
works.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps you are confusing the notion of being certain (or do I mean
> confident?) of the origin of a page with the notion of trusting the
> content.
But knowing the origin of the page is useful in deciding whether to
trust the content:
if (know_origin)
{
if (trust_origin) // personal decision, not machine decision
trust = true;
else
trust = false;
}
else
trust = false;
> It illustrates the more general point that knowing the origin of
> content is of limited value in knowing whether the content can be
> trusted or not.
Really? I always consider the source of information when trying to
decide if I believe that information. Of course, as a general rule,
anything on the Web gets a high untrustworthiness rating simply because
it is on the Web...
|
