Rather than having a central think tank, or centralized trust of body or body of trust
We adopt this idea called “zero trust.” Part and parcel of zero trust is this idea of assuming
they don’t trust each other, and they don’t even trust the humans who are running them.
So, if we do the same to zero-knowledge, what we did for Zero Trust in the service of data
So each and every one of them need to build their own trust through this multi-stakeholder model
that it can bootstrap more trust. It engenders more trust. So really, thank you for being detail-oriented
That’s right. Trust is not like Bitcoin. It’s a relational concept. It only exists between many
good things. What are the biggest challenges? You mentioned trust, but how? Can you mention more details about how to build a trust?
If we are to increase trust at all, we have to first build trust between people here, in PDIS
of people who don’t trust something simply because a protocol; they trust because they had a part
We observed that people generally trust a international charity better than a domestic
It’s simple, in a sense, but I don’t think, originally I didn’t realize how much non-trust
It’s all about building trust and forging anti-corruption counterweights built on trust
You had mentioned earlier about the government trust in people and how this has facilitated
Which is why I put trust in the center and have those four pillars as the service of the trust
a feature about data management and public trust. I’ve spoken to a few sort of heads of digital and data
I think trust is more valuable than data. You can have a lot of data
social trust, but it is about this fundamental trust of the infrastructure.
-to-eye. In Taiwan, we have the same. Meeting face-to-face builds 30 percent of trust. Through high
confirmation, so people do not have to trust the government. People only have to trust in press
