Personally, I trust more the quantum communication physics than digital constructions.
For us, transparency is a way to build trust in democracy.
但是現在發現並不是，而是動員的工具，每一個網站只要連到五個別的動員網站，一瞬間動員的群組就形成了，這個是Swift trust ，很快彼此信任，然後就集結起來、展示力量，不管在全球資訊網的任何一個角落就可以看到「藍絲帶」掛在那邊。
I know trust is easier to define and sense than wisdom.
The link to trust is a very interesting one for him.
雖然我們自己並沒有下去作檢測，但是我們generally trust ，因為各國政府都已經用了，他們的contribution會回到這裡來，所以discourse的accessibility ，我們並沒有那麼擔心，但是資策會科法所的朋友們，用他們的自動工具初步跑了一下之後，告訴我們說基本上是可以使用的，就是screen reader這一些。
People in Taiwan think that they can trust the government and I wonder how people have nurtured such a trust based relationship. However, based on the specific examples that you cited, they are able to learn that government can be trusted based on such specific cases. May I understand in that way?
It really is. It really is because it stops the trusted messenger thing. The trusted messenger effect is how you associate a face to a book. Because you know the face, you trust the book. Most of the trolling mechanism is on discrediting the face, and so that you discredit the book.
If they say something that’s right, they get the credit, because you can see them across that screen. In Taiwan, we say meeting face to face build 30 percent of trust , and in high definition video conference, maybe 20 percent of trust . They trust the citizens more to initiate the ideas.
In Taiwan, what we have demonstrated is that it does take time. In 2018, it was still just 20% trust level. It took us almost eight years to reach 60%. My president, Dr. Tsai, graduated with almost 70% trust level, all pan-partisan, which is very good. Every year we just dialed the trust from the government to the citizen way up, and then maybe 10% of citizens trust back a little bit.
If people don’t take this long route to earn trust , and take the shortcut of forcing the people to trust "blindly," then it actually creates a situation where any breach in trust -- it could be server security, it could be anything, it could be a social engineer, it could be a domain hijacker, whatever -- then the people by default doesn’t trust the government who was acting in people’s best interest.
These people collectively decide what kind of mechanisms they want to foster that can promote trust in the public sector so that we can trust citizens more. Just one very quick example.
In Mandarin, we say 見面三分情, you get 30 percent of trust just by meeting face-to-face. Through high-bandwidth connectivity, we get maybe 20 percent of trust versus face-to-face.
If children, their parents, and their supporting community are not trusted by the government, then they grow up not trusting the government. It’s a vicious cycle, so we’re breaking it.
How do we defend against such attacks? We still need to use AI. These AI defense technologies are part of what we call the Trusted Technology Industry Chain in Taiwan. We have five Trusted Industry Sectors comprising various trustworthy technologies. These sectors are where Taiwan hopes to concentrate both private and government investment.
Which is why I always said that our core value is for the government to trust the people and not the other way around. If we trust the people enough, if we learn their language, their story, their lived experience enough, some of them will trust back. We treasure each one of them.
Yeah, definitely. In the cybersecurity front, I think even just one year ago, almost no MPs know Zero Trust . But now everybody knows Zero Trust . You see the MPs regularly post about Zero Trust architecture. And so, this is the kind of work we can help. It’s just to normalize to mainstream technologies.
There are certain, like the public TV system, that people generally trust . At least try and trust enough to run the presidential debates and policy presentations, which is actually going on right now.
I would like the public service to trust people more. I think that’s my main mandate going in, because trust , as you can see, is mutual, and somebody has to move first.
Friends, from Taiwan to Germany: How radical participation can leapfrog public trust .
