I generally trust my SQL folks, but...
It increases trust both ways, you see.
(A Key Skill: Open Source - Trusting Strangers)
Sure. I always say to give no trust is to get no trust . So instead of asking people to rebuild trust , first ask how much can you trust the people? If you work in policymaking, you can make your decision-making process more transparent, more auditable. You can trust people with real time open data so that when things happen they don’t need to ask for freedom of information or something.
I had read the interview you did with Florian Schneider recently, where you were talking about trust of the state versus trust of corporations.
What about trusting government? Can you see that, from year to year, with these new ways of doing things that trust government has risen?
Also, they don’t trust politicians, right? Do you think this is all a process to be able to trust politicians, in a way?
This is identity authentication, continued verification, and a never trust posture. Can you tell us how zero trust helps protect against a subset of cyberattacks? What’s your vision about zero trust ? Why this is so appealing for moda and for…?
…not the other side of the question, whether the citizen trusts government more. I don’t care about that. I think the government should trust the citizens. The citizens may or may not trust back, that’s entirely the citizens’ freedom.
As public ministers, we do command a lot of trust . If we squander that trust , it’s not easy to earn it back. At some point when the trustworthy is reduced to a certain point, then all messages become essentially backfiring.
Instead of the two false dilemma, what we do is we trust the social sector with the innovation capabilities. It’s like the Pygmalion effect. If the government think the social sector is trustworthy and innovative, they become trustworthy and innovative.
This sounds like a lot. This is a circular concept, but this really is important, because if you don’t have this kind of meta trust – the government trusts citizens more than citizens trust the government – then it’s actually fascism.
Which is why I say the government must trust the people, because if the government doesn’t trust the people, this looks like a nightmare. Only by radically trusting the people can we figure out some co-governance possibilities with them.
When the public service trusts people this way, through transparency and participation, maybe some people will start to trust the public service as partners, but never more than how the public service trusts in the people. Somebody has to move first.
It’s about trusting one’s own agency of competence, of critical thinking and so on. In a sense, zero trust means not having blind faith, but rather trusting one self’s competence and the competence of people who practice similar models.
The second thing is that because trust is bidirectional, if we can let the NGOs and the individual contributors see that we are willing to trust people first, then eventually they will trust back, because that’s just how human nature works.
It has a liberating potential for you to work with a stranger, to trust a stranger. It’s what we call a "swift trust " model.
但因為這些方法無法被整合進全球的培訓、演習、標準或通報協定中，這種可互通的信任（interoperable trust ）就只留在了臺灣和少數幾個夥伴國家（如紐西蘭，他們確實學習了臺灣的劇本）。
所以我覺得就是 Trusted Tech，然後 Tech must advance freedom，這個是最主要的訊息。
當然我們在推 Trusted Tech 有一句話「Technology must advance freedom」，就是技術必須能夠促進自由。
