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
transparency, meaning that we trust the people, even though the people doesn’t trust us yet. We make
I think just this posture of trusting is already making the public service much closer
We try to expand that more. The idea is that anything that increase the mutual trust is a gift
and a cross-functional agency as you are, trust is paramount. People need to trust that you’re not going away
all the work alone. They can learn to trust strangers, to crowdsource, to trust the social innovation ecosystem.
in an agile way, really, there’s no other choice than radically trust the citizens. We can move faster together in the speed of trust.
All of this needs people who don’t have implicit trust in each other to contribute data
and that of a government, namely that we both value trust and our people, the people who trust our services
to one group and make them trust you more, but you kind of exploit that trust and create negative
and read it and trust more the people they already trust and what they reported after reading
. Genuinely pretty good things to build trust and then abuse that trust.
Saying, “We have 2,000 AirBoxes. People trust us more than they trust
Also, what’s interesting is you trust the technology and therefore
is, what it has to offer. In some of these places, there is also very little trust in the national
