←back to thread

656 points EthanHeilman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
KarlKemp ◴[] No.30103958[source]
I’m somewhat unhappy the “zero trust” terminology ha caught on. The technology is fine, but trust is an essential concept in many parts of life[0], and positioning it as something to be avoided or abolished will just further erode the relationships that define a peaceful and civil society.

0: trade only works if the sum of your trust in the legal system, intermediates, and counterparts reaches some threshold. The same is true of any interaction where the payoff is not immediate and assured, from taxes to marriage and friendship, and, no, it is not possible to eliminate it, nor would that be a society you’d want to live in. The only systems that do not rely on some trust that the other person isn’t going to kill them are maximum-security prisons and the US president’s security bubble. Both are asymmetric and still require trust in some people, just not all.

replies(7): >>30104178 #>>30104430 #>>30105899 #>>30106409 #>>30106727 #>>30106920 #>>30108257 #
1. krb686 ◴[] No.30105899[source]
Couldn't agree more on this being bad terminology. Something is always implicitly trusted. Whether it's your root CA certificates, your Infineon TPM, the Intel hardware in your box, or something else. When I first saw this term pop-up I thought it meant something completely different than it does, I guess because of the domain I work in.