Exactly. You put it perfectly. Basically, the CECC need to earn their trust , and they earn their trust by responding to each and every question that you just refer to in the daily press conference.
Our basic philosophy is that the government need to radically trust the people, without expecting any trust back. That the government need to make ourselves transparent to people, without making citizen transparent to the state.
At least it is a conversation that has a chance of converging. That is our main contribution, is making the state apparatus radically trust people most and then people, some of them, may trust back.
It is a big issue. Trustworthiness , security, privacy, accountability, and privacy protection.
They also said that the population does not need to trust the government.
A streamlined trustworthy resource that builds an effective community is our goal.
Am I literally between the two bodies that are not trusting each other?
If you put 10 years into it, you get a lot of trust .
That’s one of the very popular topics on the street. People who just had a conversation with then people who they barely knew, they actually trust each other more than they trust the national government.
If sufficient amount of people – instead of blindly trusting the government – build up civic participation platforms, then it’s possible for the public servants to start trusting the citizens. Then it makes a world of difference.
All that stuff is obviously really important and very helpful. If we end up building out some kind of trusted presence, some kind of trusted brand, then we’re hoping to have the good problem solve.
It’s designed in this way, so that you don’t have to trust any trusted intermediary. This is unlike the Singaporean Trace Together, in which case the National Health Authority still knows something about this.
That mechanism, legally, is not very much there yet, so you have to basically trust the goodwill of the developers. Of course I understand using your architecture there’s less requirement of that sort of trust .
You must have a trust in the government even before the pandemic. I’m talking from Hungary and that’s our problem here because even before coronavirus came to Hungary, we didn’t trust the government.
Once we upgraded into WiMAX, or into high-bandwidth definition, so it’s at least 1080p, and sometimes 2K or 4K now, then people actually builds trust . It’s increasing trust . There’s a critical threshold.
Second, it requires a cryptographically secure and cross-partisan trusted registry of people who can vote to guard against vote stuffing. Both, I think, is not primarily a technological problem. It is a social trust problem.
Also, branching in on PayPal actually underlines a lot of inquisitive trust in the flow of commerce, because to pay for any service without even clicking, without even doing anything. Essentially, it’s line of trust .
Like for the air box example, we also worked with universities to develop blockchains so that when they upload their numbers into the national high speed computing center it’s snapshooted and checked into the blockchain so people can trust the government to not alter their numbers. That builds trust , and once there’s trust there’s effective partnership.
The second one is multi-directional. The government trust the citizens first, and some citizens feeling the trust , decide to trust back. It is far more reciprocal and far more equal. Of course, all the governance system that I’m designing is of the second kind, the collaborative, horizontal, new power that grows when there is more people joining.
Definitely. Yeah. I think it’s partly about how much government workers — public servants — trust the citizens. Because trust is reciprocal. If we don’t publish things as open data, then it means, kind of implicitly, that we don’t trust the citizens with these data. If you have to file a FOIA request and wait for 90 days and a heavily redacted copy gets sent to you, this of course says something about the trust from the government to the citizens.
