You can check the evidence trail, and the data you use is also on the DLT, if you really want to check that, and so on. It’s a cheap way to get people to trust each other more. We have many uses for along that lane, but not as cryptocurrency.
Until everybody has the awareness that most of these are machine-generated, are tailored to our preferences in a way that is bereft of algorithmic sovereignty, meaning that people cannot actually trust the message before their eyes until they actually understand and control the rules which those code are being written.
Deeply listening, deeply understanding your perspective. No two-minute increments allow me to have that bond of seeing you, trusting you, starting to see you in a new light, hearing what is the story behind the story that makes you view that world, that starts to make me question my certainties.
People have general trust about distributed ledgers that we can hold ourselves into account, no matter where the sensor and the data came from. This is how we can then develop the evidence base, like climate change and other action plans, with other people in other communities without bilateral, multilateral pacts.
I’m optimistic in the humanity’s potential to deal with any outbreaks, virtual or real, of virus. I also trust the people researching this kind of thing because before joining the cabinet, I was also working with Silicon Valley companies, developing social media for the enterprise setting for eight years.
I would say that most of the operations is not designed to undermine the Internet infrastructure of the state, which is very difficult, but to undermine people’s trust on the Internet, which is much easier, as you said, around disinformation around all sort of different computational propaganda, and so on.
In Oxford, I’m developing the “6-Pack of Care.” You know, muscle. And also portable. So this is called the alignment to a process of relationship — relational alignment. So the process of care, as the ethics of care says, should maximize not engagement but the relational health, mutual trust , and inclusion.
There’s a rich literature on deliberative democracy: it improves trust and reduces polarization, but it’s historically expensive and hard to implement. U.S. democracy has thin participation—vote, donate, protest—intermittent and not very deliberative. Your practices could help. You mentioned Bowling Green; what about California?
I’m no longer younger than 35, so I’m no longer a young reverse mentor, but I used to be one. And this allows these people to be trusted by the senior public service for two years during their term, and many of them then take leadership roles in higher positions.
As the digital minister, part of my job is to work with the semiconductor supply chain to ensure cybersecurity, like the zero trust network architecture around international standards such as SEMI E187, designed by Taiwanese cross-sectoral governance, and to apply it to all the supply chain around semiconductor, not just TSMC.
Yeah, how we approach the Zero Trust authentication, safeguarding the endpoints, and so on, starting from moda, but before the end of the year to all the different ministries deploying T-Road. The only reason why we can scale so quickly is because, again, it is an interoperable ecosystem. Happy to share.
In some cases, there may be occasions where government will conduct surveillance of people in order to protect them. How does Taiwan handle the issue of this limitation to transparency? How do you obtain the consent of people with regards to this limitation and secure trust of the people towards the government?
There’s two designs that I believe are broadly applicable, the first, to trust our citizens. In each and every ministry, there’s a team that we call participation officers, that are explicitly designed as part of their job to engage the public on such multistakeholder forums, and they support each other.
The live stream tools benefit equally all the different parties so that people can get a real time counting information from the Youtubers that they trust and therefore improve election integrity in Taiwan. That’s also a great counter disinformation tool by making sure that the real facts spreads faster than misinformation.
If they do want to learn something new, a step above that they can hand their national health care card to one of their trusted family members, who will then use the electronic version, the digital version of the stimulus voucher, adding the quota of the elderly into their mobile payment account.
We’re not outlawing. We’re not doing a top-down dictate that says everybody has to use a smartphone. We’re saying people who prefer to store the data in their telecoms do so, but the other people who trust the venues more will still do so with slips of paper.
Basically, we took all the sides, established the initial rules, and then people, of course, said, “OK. What if I work very long hours, so when I reach the pharmacy has closed and I don’t live with anyone so I don’t have anyone I trust with my national health card?”
Sandstorm comes to my mind when I think about zero trust , basically, Sandstorm allows any public servants in Taiwan to self service and install any open source software within the public service, but treating that particular software, it could be WordPress, it could be a markdown editor like HackMD, and so on.
More openness, more transparency, greater freedom, which you’re demonstrating a high level of trust towards the Chinese people. I’m just wondering, though and you did make mention of the fact that it’s under limited circumstances that you would take down information that’s your last resort is my understanding.
Underlying both into the Taiwan model is an idea if the government trusts the citizens, then there is no false dilemma between freedom and human right on one side and public health, either mental or physical, on the other side. This false dilemma only appears if the state wants to do everything.
