Trust and distrust in electoral technologies: what can we learn from the failure of electronic voting in the Netherlands (2006/07)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05052v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 14:07:59 GMT
• Title: Trust and distrust in electoral technologies: what can we learn from the failure of electronic voting in the Netherlands (2006/07)
• Abstract summary: This paper focuses on the complex dynamics of trust and distrust in digital government technologies by approaching the cancellation of machine voting in the Netherlands (2006-07)<n>It describes how a previously trusted system can collapse, how paradoxical the relationship between trust and distrust is, and how it interacts with adopting and managing electoral technologies.<n>Overall, this paper contributes to understanding trust dynamics in digital government technologies, with implications for policymaking and technology adoption strategies.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper focuses on the complex dynamics of trust and distrust in digital government technologies by approaching the cancellation of machine voting in the Netherlands (2006-07). This case describes how a previously trusted system can collapse, how paradoxical the relationship between trust and distrust is, and how it interacts with adopting and managing electoral technologies. The analysis stresses how, although being a central component, technology's trustworthiness dialogues with the socio-technical context in which it is inserted, for example, underscoring the relevance of public administration in securing technological environments. Beyond these insights, the research offers broader reflections on trust and distrust in data-driven technologies, advocating for differentiated strategies for building trust versus managing distrust. Overall, this paper contributes to understanding trust dynamics in digital government technologies, with implications for policymaking and technology adoption strategies.

Related papers

• Reciprocal Trust and Distrust in Artificial Intelligence Systems: The Hard Problem of Regulation [0.0]
  Article argues that AI systems should be recognized as artifacts capable of exercising a form of agency.<n>It examines the implications of these reciprocal trust dynamics for regulators tasked with overseeing AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T12:57:16Z)
• Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
  We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
• Cybersecurity policy adoption in South Africa: Does public trust matter? [0.0]
  This study examines how public perception influences the implementation and adoption of cybersecurity frameworks in South Africa.<n>Trust and public sentiment have minimal influence within the South African policy landscape, despite the country's high cybercrime prevalence.<n>The study proposes a trust-centric policymaking framework designed to integrate public perception as a proactive dimension of cybersecurity governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T21:05:08Z)
• Understanding AI Trustworthiness: A Scoping Review of AIES & FAccT Articles [41.419459280691605]
  Trustworthy AI serves as a foundational pillar for two major AI ethics conferences: AIES and FAccT.<n>This scoping review aims to examine how the AIES and FAccT communities conceptualize, measure, and validate AI trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T09:40:38Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Is Trust Correlated With Explainability in AI? A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a comprehensive examination of the existing literature to explore the relationship between AI explainability and trust. Our analysis, incorporating data from 90 studies, reveals a statistically significant but moderate positive correlation between the explainability of AI systems and the trust they engender. This research highlights its broader socio-technical implications, particularly in promoting accountability and fostering user trust in critical domains such as healthcare and justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T23:30:55Z)
• The Jade Gateway to Trust: Exploring How Socio-Cultural Perspectives Shape Trust Within Chinese NFT Communities [53.778565588482294]
  The emergence of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has transformed how we handle digital assets and value. Despite their initial popularity, NFTs face declining adoption influenced not only by cryptocurrency volatility but also by trust dynamics within communities. Our research identifies three critical trust dimensions in China's NFT market: technological, institutional, and social.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T10:03:30Z)
• "Even explanations will not help in trusting [this] fundamentally biased system": A Predictive Policing Case-Study [8.240854389254222]
  The use of AI systems in high-risk domains have often led users to either under-trust it, potentially causing inadequate reliance or over-trust it, resulting in over-compliance. Past research has indicated that explanations provided by AI systems can enhance user understanding of when to trust or not trust the system. This study explores the impact of different explanation types and user expertise on establishing appropriate trust in AI-based predictive policing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T09:43:48Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems. Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• Deepfake Technology Unveiled: The Commoditization of AI and Its Impact on Digital Trust [1.1402735220778926]
  Deepfake technology enables fraud, misinformation, and the erosion of authenticity in multimedia.<n>Using cost-effective, easy to use tools such as Runway, Rope, and ElevenLabs, we explore how realistic deepfakes can be created with limited resources.<n>We emphasize the urgent need for regulatory frameworks, public awareness, and collaborative efforts to maintain trust in digital media.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T18:02:49Z)
• Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions [6.724854390957174]
  The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our daily life explains the significance of trust/distrust in AI from a user perspective. Trust/distrust in AI plays the role of a regulator and could significantly control the level of this diffusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T20:26:49Z)
• Mathematical Algorithm Design for Deep Learning under Societal and Judicial Constraints: The Algorithmic Transparency Requirement [65.26723285209853]
  We derive a framework to analyze whether a transparent implementation in a computing model is feasible. Based on previous results, we find that Blum-Shub-Smale Machines have the potential to establish trustworthy solvers for inverse problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:38Z)
• Common (good) practices measuring trust in HRI [55.2480439325792]
  Trust in robots is widely believed to be imperative for the adoption of robots into people's daily lives. Researchers have been exploring how people trust robot in different ways. Most roboticists agree that insufficient levels of trust lead to a risk of disengagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T20:52:10Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• AI Assurance using Causal Inference: Application to Public Policy [0.0]
  Most AI approaches can only be represented as "black boxes" and suffer from the lack of transparency. It is crucial not only to develop effective and robust AI systems, but to make sure their internal processes are explainable and fair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-01T16:03:06Z)
• Personalized multi-faceted trust modeling to determine trust links in social media and its potential for misinformation management [61.88858330222619]
  We present an approach for predicting trust links between peers in social media. We propose a data-driven multi-faceted trust modeling which incorporates many distinct features for a comprehensive analysis. Illustrated in a trust-aware item recommendation task, we evaluate the proposed framework in the context of a large Yelp dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-11T19:40:51Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)
• Towards a Policy-as-a-Service Framework to Enable Compliant, Trustworthy AI and HRI Systems in the Wild [7.225523345649149]
  Building trustworthy autonomous systems is challenging for many reasons beyond simply trying to engineer agents that 'always do the right thing' There is a broader context that is often not considered within AI and HRI: that the problem of trustworthiness is inherently socio-technical. This paper emphasizes the "fuzzy" socio-technical aspects of trustworthiness and the need for their careful consideration during both design and deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T18:32:31Z)
• Trustworthy AI Inference Systems: An Industry Research View [58.000323504158054]
  We provide an industry research view for approaching the design, deployment, and operation of trustworthy AI inference systems. We highlight opportunities and challenges in AI systems using trusted execution environments. We outline areas of further development that require the global collective attention of industry, academia, and government researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-10T23:05:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.