The Trust Business

21/10/10

Brief thoughts this morning about trust and the internetz…

I tweeted last night about Nosh4Noah, because a Twitter correspondent in SA asked me to. It didn’t even occur to me to worry that the whole thing might be a hoax, but of course, as people did point out after I’d gone to sleep, that’s always possible on the internetz. In this case it would require that someone chat with me occasionally for a few months and then sting me. I suppose the return on investment would be adequate-ish. (I’m leaving aside entirely the fact that the person in question seems kinda awesome, because my grandfather the professional confidence trickster was totally five-alarm awesome, so much so that he occasionally conned the same hotel twice in six months. It don’t signify, as Flashman would say.)

But look, it also occurs to me that I’m in a trust-based business. I need to expand my readership and I need people to buy my books one after another and recommend them to friends. I need people to trust positive reviews, trust me over negative ones, trust friends’ recommendations and booksellers’ enthusiasm. I need them to trust that their time is better spent with my outpourings than in front of a games console or one of those really awesomely trashy TV shows I watch so many of myself.

While that gives me a strong motive to check my sources, it also gives me reason to exercise and endorse trust as a way of being in the world especially in low-consequence settings. If Nosh4Noah was asking for credit card details, that would be one thing, but asking for a bank-to-bank transfer, while a bit cumbersome, shouldn’t afford the receiving account any access to or much usable data about the remitting account.

In other words, unless someone has set up a bent bank – in which case, frankly, they wouldn’t be bothering with the likes of me – the only thing I risk by donating is as far as I can see my ten quid. I’m content with that risk for the reward – the possibility of helping Noah. In the charitable context, I like to do the job that’s in front of me – I do bits and bobs for Reprieve, I make donations to things which somehow feel right (like DebRA), and overall that pleases me and makes me feel I’ve improved the world a bit. I don’t generally give to animal charities, because there are people who need help, although I did (in memory of Douglas Adams, really) donate to save the Kakopo a few years ago. I do not tend to ask how it will all get spent and so on – although I eschew Oxfam because they seem to be determined to kill the second hand book shops by taking advantage of their charitable status to create a full-on competitor to small indie stores. They did promise to talk to me about it a while back, but on the day I sat there and waited and they stood me up and have never apologised, let alone re-arranged the conversation. So now I do my giving elsewhere, because – back on track – I feel Oxfam does not merit my trust.

As the digital environment merges more and more with the living world, we’re going to have a lot more trust issues. DRM protection of digital media is flat out impossible in the long run; an expensive boondoggle. That means people will have to act in a trustworthy way towards ebooks and their publishers and authors, and we’ll have to trust that that’s what is happening. There are already AR apps which will show you who around you is Twittering what, and effectively interface the real world with social media – which means a stranger could have access to a certain amount of information about you. You have to decide how much.

All of which is a long way of saying that I choose to trust. I’ve been taken for a mug a couple of times – most notably by a film director who shall remain nameless, but who still owes me three hundred quid for what he claimed was ransoming his laptop from a burglar who had stolen it with all his scripts, but which was I now rather suspect a massive drugs debt.

On the other hand, I have made money, too, garnered publicity and met extraordinary people, and been able to facilitate in small ways some truly magnificent things – of which I trust Nosh4Noah will turn out to be one.

9 Comments to “The Trust Business”

  • Kate said on October 21st, 2010:

    Aaah Nick. Firstly, I’m sorry I’ve put you in a potentially awkward situation. You have been exceptionally kind to me, particularly in this instance, and I’m sad you might have taken flak for that.

    Secondly, Noah is very real. He’s a curly haired kid who has wormed his way into my heart, not least because he’s one of my oldest friend’s son. His folks are sweet, generous, down to earth people who are trying to do the best they can for their boy. They don’t even really know we’re doing this, because they’re not the kind of people who’d ever ask for money.

    The bottom line is that this is crucial development time for Noah. The more therapy he gets, the more chance he has of ‘mainstreaming’. That lovely phrase that implies he needs to behave a certain way to fit in.

    So Melinda, Bianca and I decided to see if we could step in. Step up. And see if we can just plug this very short term gap for him.

    If we get more money than we need, it’ll a) go into trust for Noah and b) a percentage will go to other autism related causes.

    We’re bumbling along in a little love filled daze. We’re probably going to be accused of all kinds of stuff.

    But I want you to know that we won’t let you down. And we’re grateful. More than you can ever know.

    Thank you!

    (And I still want to know when I can get your next book, dammit).

  • Nick Harkaway said on October 21st, 2010:

    You mustn’t feel bad, and you certainly didn’t put me in a tricky position. It points up something I probably should have mentioned; that trust is not a permanent state, it’s a thing in flux. In order to maintain it, I choose to explain my thinking from time to time, and to give good information about my decisions so that people know on what basis I make them and can decide on that basis what they want to do in relation to what I suggest. (And I don’t suggest things that often, because I suspect that’s sort of irksome.)

    Notoriously, we as people don’t always make great decisions. We tend to be a bit short term and a bit lousy at assessing certain kinds of risk. Global warming is a good example. People seem to fixate on a desire for scientific certainty. But put the debate in another context: suppose there was a chance that using mobile phones caused your ears to fall off. What odds would you accept? Suppose the chance was 50%… I wouldn’t do it. 20%? No. 10%? No. So actually, at what point would I consider the chance worth taking? One in how many thousand or million? Right. So what level of probability is acceptable regarding the partial destruction of the biosphere we will live in in our late age and which our children and grandchildren will inherit? The latest IPCC report rates AGW as a threat with something like a 90% probability. If it was 10% would that make any difference at all? No. If the chance was one in one hundred? Come on, seriously, when the thing at risk is the entire world? I think on the whole it would want to be lower than the chance that a cellphone will make my ears drop off.

    Anyway, it feels reasonably clear to me that the risk here is negligible and the reward is large. The barrier to trust is low, and easily met by you (Kate), whom I know only a little. Even leaving aside Game Theory arguments about cooperation over defection, it just seems clear to me that even if I were completely wrong in this instance, the ethos of trust is the way to live.

    Off to make my donation now :)

  • Camilla said on October 21st, 2010:

    Boondoggle is a glorious word.

  • Kate said on October 21st, 2010:

    Listen, Nick Harkaway, you’re not helping my flappy fangirlness one bit.

    On the other hand, you’ve made me worried about my ears.

    In your own words, gramercy!

  • indigotea said on October 21st, 2010:

    While I do not suspect this is any kind of scam, I would like to point out that here in the US, bank-to-bank is not considered the safest way to go. If you authorize a person to put money into your account, you also authorize them to take money *out* of your account. Con artists here are always looking for ways to get your bank account number because electronic transfers are the fastest, easiest way for them to steal. I’m treasurer for a national not-for-profit, and if I discovered that one of our bank account numbers was online, I’d be freaking right the hell out and would definitely be freezing accounts ASAP.

    Most groups trying to set up an easy way to accept donations create a PayPal account, and PayPal acts as the firewall between banks. Yes, you can still get ripped off by a convincing scammer. But PayPal has become a standard, it’s generally very safe, and won’t set off the alarm bells like a direct bank transfer — even in this direction — would.

  • Jen said on October 21st, 2010:

    Yep, I have to agree with indigotea’s stance – I had no trust issue, but I would transfer funds even to an ordinary personal Paypal account long before using a bank-to-bank method. I think it just sets off alarm bells with me. Not “this is a scam” but just plain “oh no! eek!” type bells. Ya know? Anyway – I’ll be waiting and watching for when/if there’s a different donation option!

  • Melinda said on October 21st, 2010:

    I second everything Kate (who, for the record, is indeed kinda awesome!) said and I absolutely understand the preference for Paypal over bank-to-bank transfers. I can assure you that we are doing our level best to get some kind of secure payment mechanism set up on the blog – it’s just trickier to organise in SA than here in the UK. I don’t think we foresaw the response we’ve been getting and we continue to be utterly stunned by the acts of love and trust like yours. It’s enough to convince any cynical soul that we live in a beautiful world :-)

  • Bumbling along | Nosh4Noah said on October 27th, 2010:

    [...] almost immediately someone asked him how he knew we weren’t a hoax.  Nick responded with this post on his blog about the nature of trust and the risk / rewards about having a low trust threshold on the [...]

  • Kate said on January 16th, 2012:

    Hey Nick, I just wanted to let you know that this year, Noah will be joining a mainstream school. He’s still on the spectrum, and his journey to leading a ‘normal’ life with autism will be a long one. But what we did helped! And my heart is brimming with glee. So thank you so very much for all you did to help this one small boy.

    In a note from his mum: “In April 2009 Noah’s Griffiths indicated he was 18 months developmentally delayed. His recent JSAIS assessment in October 2011 puts him ahead of his peers in terms of school readiness. So happy I could cry!”

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    K

Add your comment: