6 ms·

It's an interesting idea and I was with him until he said the government should be involved to enforce this. The government doesn't regulate any meaningful rela

It's an interesting idea and I was with him until he said the government should be involved to enforce this. The government doesn't regulate any meaningful relationships in my life so why should it regulate who I decide to trust? Seems like a fantasy to even suggest that it could do so.

techiferous 17y ago
There might be something to it. I doubt he's thinking of a big brother scenario; he was referring to checks and balances. The government has a lot of information that would be useful about whom to trust and perhaps Craig was mostly thinking about government in a collaborative, information-sharing role. But at first glance the thought of the government telling me whom to trust gives me the creeps, too.
branden 17y ago
I agree that government shouldn't take an active role in running the system, but protecting the system by preventing abuse seems like a good fit. Maybe something very similar to the way government enforces contracts.
- rwl 17y ago
  I see two other roles the government can play. The first is funding research into the best way to build a distributed trust network. The other, perhaps more important, role is in creating and enforcing standards. (This role might emerge naturally from the results of research.) There must be a defined set of features that anyone providing a "trust network client" has to implement. Preferably such standards would include a provision that requires providers to let users package up their "trust data" and take it to another provider, with a guarantee that the original provider would not maintain it. (After all, you might decide that you don't trust your provider!) Otherwise, it will be the same old story: every private entity in the game will want to control their users' data, and prevent them from going elsewhere. Any moderately successful trust network will be incompatible with the others, and even those that become popular will live and die with the entities behind them. Imagine if the Internet had been built like that.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
Really? so you don't have any "meaningful relationships" that involve contracts, laws, things like that? You don't drive a car? Use a phone? Benefit from Police and Fire protection? Those things are all government regulated. Really when you think about it, government has a lot to do right now with regulating trust. Think of how much more difficult trust between businesses would be if contracts didn't have the force of law? If disputes couldn't be settled in the courts?
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  Meaningful might be something else to you than it does to me. The meaningful relationships in my life include my wife, my child, my family, my friends, and of course spiritual relationships. The government does nothing in these. I don't want a relationship with the police department, the fire department and I don't see a purpose for the government to regulate phones. Then there is also the issue that contracts can be voided if the government decides to.
joseakle 17y ago
The governmet issues ID cards, which are used in diverse trust situations.

techiferous 17y ago

There might be something to it. I doubt he's thinking of a big brother scenario; he was referring to checks and balances. The government has a lot of information that would be useful about whom to trust and perhaps Craig was mostly thinking about government in a collaborative, information-sharing role. But at first glance the thought of the government telling me whom to trust gives me the creeps, too.

branden 17y ago

I agree that government shouldn't take an active role in running the system, but protecting the system by preventing abuse seems like a good fit. Maybe something very similar to the way government enforces contracts.

rwl 17y ago
I see two other roles the government can play. The first is funding research into the best way to build a distributed trust network. The other, perhaps more important, role is in creating and enforcing standards. (This role might emerge naturally from the results of research.) There must be a defined set of features that anyone providing a "trust network client" has to implement. Preferably such standards would include a provision that requires providers to let users package up their "trust data" and take it to another provider, with a guarantee that the original provider would not maintain it. (After all, you might decide that you don't trust your provider!) Otherwise, it will be the same old story: every private entity in the game will want to control their users' data, and prevent them from going elsewhere. Any moderately successful trust network will be incompatible with the others, and even those that become popular will live and die with the entities behind them. Imagine if the Internet had been built like that.

theBobMcCormick 17y ago

Really? so you don't have any "meaningful relationships" that involve contracts, laws, things like that? You don't drive a car? Use a phone? Benefit from Police and Fire protection? Those things are all government regulated. Really when you think about it, government has a lot to do right now with regulating trust. Think of how much more difficult trust between businesses would be if contracts didn't have the force of law? If disputes couldn't be settled in the courts?

jswinghammer 17y ago
Meaningful might be something else to you than it does to me. The meaningful relationships in my life include my wife, my child, my family, my friends, and of course spiritual relationships. The government does nothing in these. I don't want a relationship with the police department, the fire department and I don't see a purpose for the government to regulate phones. Then there is also the issue that contracts can be voided if the government decides to.

joseakle 17y ago

The governmet issues ID cards, which are used in diverse trust situations.