←back to thread

656 points EthanHeilman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | 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. judge2020 ◴[] No.30106727[source]
The terminology stems from "zero trusting" the network you're in - just because someone can talk to a system doesn't mean they should be able to do anything; the user (via their user agent) should be forced to prove who they say they are before you trust them and before anything can be carried out.