另外，剛剛講到 zero trust ，我們在推的「更信任」，從硬體的信任、晶片的信任、晶片資安、系統化的資安，各國都關切資安的風險，很多資安的東西不是公司自己做了就算，必須要有一些國際上的合規，如何達到供應鏈當中，這也是公會切入的點，以上。
The three pillars that you mentioned are interesting: reduce risk, save time, and build trust .
Basically, there has to be a lot of trust between the population and its government.
It sounds like trust has played a big role, though, in Taiwan’s ability to…
Pardon me. You do see a role for the government to teach people to trust ?
We are at a point, people who will trust them. That’s the whole game...
You’ve talked about the link between that and building a sense of public trust .
Yes, but I trust citizens more, which is why we’re doing this consultative process.
Add on top of that the fact that for a long time now, trust in government even before these current spate of authoritarian and populist leaders, that trust in government has been declining over many, many years. In 1958, 73 percent of people said that they could trust the federal government in the United States to do the right thing just about always.
This is not about me convincing people to trust me more, not at all. This is about me showing that I trust people closest to the pain, to the suffering, to come up with innovations, ideas that’s worth spreading.
You don’t have to trust only Taiwan, but if Taiwan and an east, or the Japan equivalent mutually assert that we trust each other’s lab to guard against cyber security threats, then I think that’s really powerful.
People believe in the full context of accountability. People like to make a fully-informed decision themselves. If this is a message in the form of trust as we’ve got it right, then, of course, nobody really trusts that.
They invariably all report the same, that people thought they were divided, but they were actually not. After each process such as this, people’s trust with each other, as well, as the public service trust to the people, increases.
This is how trust can grow between the public servants and the public in general because every side trusts the other side to treat carefully the messages sent and also give useful response and then go back and so on.
I actually think it’s really interesting what you’re talking about, in terms of the government trusting the people and the people trusting the government, because another area that you’re clearly also very interested in is government transparency.
They can already look at the entire history of relevant data to make decision with. Because then the trust is built in a way that is part of the social fabric. Instead of just focusing on a few stakeholder groups doing consultations and so on, you see gradual increasing of trust . In 2014, the trust level from the citizenry to the Taiwanese government was 9%.
If we have imposed, as I mentioned, top-down ways without explaining why, then even the most strict lockdowns result in fatigue. People simply cannot maintain that for a very long time. From my experience in countering the pandemic, and infodemic, what we are doing in the public service is just to trust the citizens, because to give no trust is to get no trust .
Trust your own citizens. That’s my number one advice. To give no trust is to get no trust . If the average citizen can participate in the kind of data governance, data stewardship…For example, in Taiwan, even primary schoolers, almost all of the primary schools have at least one of those air boxes that measures the air quality and contribute to a distributed ledger.
If they make decisions without accountability, without saying why, without explaining the bias, then you cannot trust that assistant. Anything you can trust a human understudy, anything you ask, must be answered by AI, too. If the AI can answer that, then it’s assistive technology. If the AI cannot, then you should not trust it. It’s that simple. That’s the first answer.
My particular area of expertise is, in 17.18, making sure everybody can trust each other. In terms of data, 17.17, making it possible to trust across nations and across sectors, and 17.6, which is to earn this trust through open innovation instead of patents and copyrighting exclusivity of colonizing technology. That will be understood by pretty much any ministry in the world.
