Calculating a trust score

• US 10,380,703 B2
• Filed: 01/06/2017
• Issued: 08/13/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 03/20/2015
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: www.TrustScience.com Inc.
• Original Assignee: www.TrustScience.com Inc.
• Inventors: Chrapko, Evan V, Chan, Leo M., Chrapko, Shane, Marsh, Stephen, Mawji, Ashif
• Primary Examiner(s): Potratz, Daniel B
• Application Number:
  US15/400,471
• Publication Number:
  US 20170301038A1
• Time in Patent Office: 949 Days
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 7/026 Magnitude comparison, i.e. determining the relative order of operands based on their numerical value, e.g. window comparator
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/384 using social networks
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/4016 involving fraud or risk level assessment in transaction processing
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0282 Rating or review of business operators or products
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/03 Credit; Loans; Processing thereof
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/01 Social networking
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/1408 by monitoring network traffic monitoring network traffic per se H04L43/00

Abstract

Systems, devices, and methods are described herein for calculating a trust score. The trust score may be calculated between entities including, but not limited to, human users, groups of users, organizations, or businesses/corporations. A system trust score may be calculated for an entity by combining a variety of factors, including verification data, a network connectivity score, publicly available information, and/or ratings data. A peer trust score targeted from a first entity to a second entity may also be calculated based on the above factors. In some embodiments, the peer trust score may be derived from the system trust score for the target entity and may take into account additional factors, including social network connections, group/demographic info, and location data. Finally, a contextual trust score may be calculated between the first and second entities based on a type of transaction or activity to be performed between the two entities.

Claims

1. A method, comprising:

determining, by a system comprising a processor, a trust score for a first entity reflective of a first degree of trustworthiness of the first entity without any relation to a second entity based on a first set of weights applied to values for trust valuation components, wherein the determining the trust score comprises;

accessing, by the system via a network, one or more external data sources comprising information about the first entity related to the trust valuation components; and

determining, by the system, the values for the trust valuation components based on the information;

receiving, by the system, activity information indicating an activity for potential performance between the first entity and the second entity;

determining, by the system, updated values for the trust valuation components based on one or more relations between the first entity and the second entity, wherein the one or more relations comprise one or more connections between the first entity and the second entity in one or more network communities;

determining, by the system, a second set of weights for the trust valuation components based on relevance to the activity and the second entity; and

determining, by the system prior to performance of the activity, an updated trust score for the first entity reflective of a second degree of trustworthiness of the first entity based on the updated values for the trust valuation components and the second set of weights, wherein the second degree of trustworthiness indicates a recommended degree of trust the second entity should have for the first entity in association with proceeding with the performance of the activity.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the updated values further comprises determining the updated values based on the activity.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the second set of weights comprises determining the second set of weights based on a type of the first entity or the second entity.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the second set of weights comprises determining the second set of weights based on a relationship between the first entity and the second entity.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

controlling, by the system, authorization for the performance of the activity based on the updated trust score relative to a threshold trust score.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the activity comprises a financial transaction, wherein the receiving the activity information comprises receiving valuation information reflective of a valuation of the financial transaction, and wherein the determining the second set of weights comprises determining the second set of weights based on the valuation.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the trust valuation components are selected from a group comprising:

a data verification component, a network connectivity component, a credit score component, a core data component, a ratings/feedback component, a group/demographics component, a search engine mining component, and a transaction history component.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

determining, by the system, a location associated with the first entity or the activity, and wherein the determining the updated trust score further comprises determining the updated trust score based on the location.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the determining the updated trust score comprises adjusting the trust score to reflect a degree of danger associated with the location.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the trust valuation components comprise a transaction history component and wherein the determining the updated values comprises recalculating a weight for the transaction history component based on transaction history data regarding transactions between the first entity and the second entity.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein the trust valuation components comprise a transaction history component and wherein the determining the updated values comprises recalculating a value for the transaction history component based on transaction history data associated with the activity.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein the second entity comprises a human and wherein the determining the updated trust score further comprises determining the updated trust score based on biological response information that reflects a biological response generated by the second entity in association with determining whether to proceed with the performance of the activity.

13. A system, comprising:

a processor; and

a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising;

determining a trust score for a first entity reflective of a first degree of trustworthiness of the first entity without any relation to a second entity based on a first set of weights applied to values for trust valuation components, wherein the determining the trust score comprises;

accessing one or more network accessible data sources comprising information about the first entity related to the trust valuation components; and

determining, by the system, the values for the trust valuation components based on the information;

receiving activity information indicating an activity for potential performance between the first entity and the second entity;

determining updated values for the trust valuation components based on one or more relations between the first entity and the second entity, wherein the one or more relations comprise one or more connections between the first entity and the second entity in one or more network communities;

determining a second set of weights for the trust valuation components based on relevance to the activity and the second entity; and

determining, by the system prior to performance of the activity, an updated trust score for the first entity reflective of a second degree of trustworthiness of the first entity based on the updated values for the trust valuation components and the second set of weights, wherein the second degree of trustworthiness indicates a recommended degree of trust the second entity should have for the first entity in association with proceeding with the performance of the activity.

14. The system of claim 13, wherein the determining the updated values further comprises determining the updated values based on the activity.

15. The system of claim 13, wherein the determining the second set of weights comprises determining the second set of weights based on a type of the first entity or the second entity.

16. The system of claim 13, wherein the determining the second set of weights comprises determining the second set of weight based on a relationship between the first entity and the second entity.

17. The system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise:

controlling authorization for the performance of the activity based on the updated trust score relative to a threshold trust score.

18. The system of claim 13, wherein the activity comprises a financial transaction, wherein the receiving the activity information comprises receiving valuation information reflective of a valuation of the financial transaction, and wherein the determining the second set of weights comprises determining the second set of weights based on the valuation.

19. The system of claim 13, wherein the trust valuation components are selected from a group comprising:

a data verification criterion, a network connectivity criterion, a credit score criterion, a core data criterion, a ratings/feedback criterion, a group/demographics criterion, a search engine mining criterion, and a transaction history criterion.

20. The system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise:

determining a location associated with the first entity or the activity, and wherein the determining the updated trust score further comprises determining the updated trust score based on the location.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the determining the updated trust score comprises adjusting the trust score to reflect a degree of danger associated with the location.

22. The system of claim 13, wherein the activity comprises a hiring for employment.

23. The system of claim 22, wherein the trust valuation components comprise a transactional history component and wherein the determining the updated values comprises recalculating a value for the transactional history component of the one or more components that accounts for based on an employment history of the first entity or the second entity.

24. The system of claim 13, wherein the second entity comprises a human and wherein the determining the updated trust score further comprises determining the updated trust score based on biological response information that reflects a biological response generated by the second entity in association with determining whether to proceed with the performance of the activity.

25. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:

determining a trust score for a first entity reflective of a first degree of trustworthiness of the first entity without any relation to a second entity based on first weights applied to first values for trust valuation components, wherein the determining comprises;

accessing, via a network, one or more external data sources comprising information about the first entity related to the trust valuation components; and

determining the values for the trust valuation components based on the information;

receiving activity information indicating an activity for potential performance between the first entity and the second entity;

determining updated values for the trust valuation components based on one or more relations between the first entity and the second entity, wherein the one or more relations comprise one or more connections between the first entity and the second entity in one or more network communities;

determining second weights for the trust valuation components based on relevance to the activity and the second entity; and

determining, prior to performance of the activity, an updated trust score for the first entity reflective of a second degree of trustworthiness of the first entity based on the updated values for the trust valuation components and the second weights, wherein the second degree of trustworthiness indicates a recommended degree of trust the second entity should have for the first entity in association with proceeding with the performance of the activity.

26. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 25, wherein the determining the updated values further comprises determining the updated values based on the activity.

27. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 25, wherein the determining the second weights comprises determining the second weights based on a type of the first entity or the second entity.

28. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 25, wherein the determining the second weights comprises determining the second weights based on a relationship between the first entity and the second entity.

29. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 25, wherein the operations further comprise:

controlling authorization for the performance of the activity based on the updated trust score relative to a threshold trust score.

30. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 25, wherein the activity comprises a financial transaction, wherein the receiving the activity information comprises receiving valuation information reflective of a valuation of the financial transaction, and wherein the determining the second weights comprises determining the second weights based on the valuation.