 Which is true about the role of trust in computing?
The Web, after all, is less than a generation old. These two features−the global scale of interdependence of human action, and the systematic acceleration of innovation, make contemporary life a bit like a slow motion disaster, in one important respect. Its very unpredictability makes it unwise to build systems that take too much away from what human beings do best: look, think, innovate, adapt, discuss, learn, and repeat. Trains and planes, telegraph and telephone, all brought many people into the same causal space. The solution to this increased complexity in the late 19th, early 20th century was to increase the role of structure and improve its design. During the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, this type of rationalization took the form of ever-more complex managed systems, with crisp specification of roles, lines of authority, communication and control. The ambition of these approaches was to specify everything that needed doing in minute detail, to enforce it through monitoring and rewards, and later to build it into the very technology of work−the assembly line. The idea was to eliminate human error and variability in the face of change by removing thinking to the system, and thus neutralizing the variability of the human beings who worked it.
 Adding more signposts for trust and approval in computing systems reflects a decrease in trust in their users
 Increased trust in computers and people is what allowed AT&T to rise in its day  Adding more types of computing system reflects an increase in the trust that higher-ups have in their employees to innovate  Adding more signposts for trust and approval in computing systems reflects a decrease in trust in their users  Increased trust in computers allows for more components of systems to be automated than before