5 ms·

How is verifying everything because you don't trust people not to make a mistake operationally different from verifying everything because you suspect bad faith

How is verifying everything because you don't trust people not to make a mistake operationally different from verifying everything because you suspect bad faith? To the supposed trusted party, the result is the same: you not taking them at their word and instead checking whatever they do. Even if you're being honest about only verifying to avoid mistakes, you can never prove it. This definition of "trust but verify" would be better reduced to "verify", since it essentially claims that trust is, if not impossible, not practically applicable in any situation.

scarejunba 7y ago
The trust part is me trusting you to want to do the right thing. The verify part is me checking that nothing went wrong - either through a mistake on your part, a misunderstanding on mine, or just the signal loss from the fact that human communication is imperfect.
- stupidcar 7y ago
  You've just restated the original post and ignored my question. Again: how does this definition of supposed trust differ from distrust in any verifiable way?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    It affects our interaction. Because I assume you'll act in good faith, I only add verification in the range of errors not in the range of malice.
    - stupidcar 7y ago
      It seems to me that the range of human error is rarely smaller than that of malice, so again I'm not sure there will be much apparent difference between an exhaustive verification of either sort.
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        Is that true in your interactions with other people? I have not seen that be the case. The distribution is very different.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - fbarred 7y ago
    Trust but verify: I will trust you will do X, and will do Y in return, but I will verify that you are actually doing X. Example: mutual disarmament treaties with Soviet Union, Iran nuclear deal. Don't trust: I will not even engage with you and will not do Y. Example: the belief by some that US should not engage in high-level diplomatic talks with North Korea on disarmament because North Korea has no incentive to follow through on its promises.
rotrux 7y ago
There are different kinds and levels of trust. "Trust but verify" doesn't mean you should give strangers your SSN. I agree that this nuance is lost within the turn-of-phrase, but omitting the trust part doesn't seem to me like a good way to build a collaborative society. Companies are just people.
- stupidcar 7y ago
  Yes, of course trust is a spectrum, and socially important, etc. But none of that answers my question: In the case of "trust but verify", how does this trust manifest in a provable way? Consider it like this: For me, trust is feelings/thoughts. I might trust you a little, a lot, etc. But for you, my trust can only be demonstrated by my actions, because you can't peer inside my head and tell whether I'm genuinely trust you, or I'm only claiming to. "Trust but verify" recommends adopting a mindset of trust but a pattern of behaviour externally indistinguishable from distrust. If I'm verifying everything you do, that does't signal trust, whatever the reasons I might give for it.
rotrux 7y ago
@stupidcar we've reached the depth-limit, so I'm responding here. > In the case of "trust but verify", how does this trust manifest in a provable way? Good point. "provable" is the problem here since we don't know eachother, and frankly I can't prove you're trustworthy initially; that's why the question this addresses (namely "trust-or-misstrust?") arises in the first place. Assuming we don't have dossiers on everyone we're going to meet and work with, we have to decide on an initial point on the trust-scale you mentioned with which to begin interaction. "Trust but verify" is about having faith that people are generally good, and treating strangers that way while protecting yourself. It indicates balance between treating strangers like data-points and getting walked all over is important, and it provides a suggestion about how to approach the situation.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > we've reached the depth-limit, so I'm responding here. There isn't a depth limit.
  - rotrux 7y ago
    > There isn't a depth limit. Well looks like you're right, but the nonetheless the reply button wasn't there. Did I sufficiently address your question?
    - e12e 7y ago
      There's a soft rate limit.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > Did I sufficiently address your question? What question are you referring to? Regardless, I suggest that it is better to reply to the comment you're replying to than to reply to some other comment, whether you see a reply link or not. You don't need the reply link to reply to a comment.
rocqua 7y ago
If you suspect bad faith (i.e. don't trust someone) you don't even get in business. If you trust someone but verify their work, you get in business but still limit damage if they turn out to act in bad faith.

scarejunba 7y ago

The trust part is me trusting you to want to do the right thing. The verify part is me checking that nothing went wrong - either through a mistake on your part, a misunderstanding on mine, or just the signal loss from the fact that human communication is imperfect.

stupidcar 7y ago
You've just restated the original post and ignored my question. Again: how does this definition of supposed trust differ from distrust in any verifiable way?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  It affects our interaction. Because I assume you'll act in good faith, I only add verification in the range of errors not in the range of malice.
  - stupidcar 7y ago
    It seems to me that the range of human error is rarely smaller than that of malice, so again I'm not sure there will be much apparent difference between an exhaustive verification of either sort.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Is that true in your interactions with other people? I have not seen that be the case. The distribution is very different.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- fbarred 7y ago
  Trust but verify: I will trust you will do X, and will do Y in return, but I will verify that you are actually doing X. Example: mutual disarmament treaties with Soviet Union, Iran nuclear deal. Don't trust: I will not even engage with you and will not do Y. Example: the belief by some that US should not engage in high-level diplomatic talks with North Korea on disarmament because North Korea has no incentive to follow through on its promises.

rotrux 7y ago

There are different kinds and levels of trust. "Trust but verify" doesn't mean you should give strangers your SSN. I agree that this nuance is lost within the turn-of-phrase, but omitting the trust part doesn't seem to me like a good way to build a collaborative society. Companies are just people.

stupidcar 7y ago
Yes, of course trust is a spectrum, and socially important, etc. But none of that answers my question: In the case of "trust but verify", how does this trust manifest in a provable way? Consider it like this: For me, trust is feelings/thoughts. I might trust you a little, a lot, etc. But for you, my trust can only be demonstrated by my actions, because you can't peer inside my head and tell whether I'm genuinely trust you, or I'm only claiming to. "Trust but verify" recommends adopting a mindset of trust but a pattern of behaviour externally indistinguishable from distrust. If I'm verifying everything you do, that does't signal trust, whatever the reasons I might give for it.

rotrux 7y ago

@stupidcar we've reached the depth-limit, so I'm responding here. > In the case of "trust but verify", how does this trust manifest in a provable way? Good point. "provable" is the problem here since we don't know eachother, and frankly I can't prove you're trustworthy initially; that's why the question this addresses (namely "trust-or-misstrust?") arises in the first place. Assuming we don't have dossiers on everyone we're going to meet and work with, we have to decide on an initial point on the trust-scale you mentioned with which to begin interaction. "Trust but verify" is about having faith that people are generally good, and treating strangers that way while protecting yourself. It indicates balance between treating strangers like data-points and getting walked all over is important, and it provides a suggestion about how to approach the situation.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> we've reached the depth-limit, so I'm responding here. There isn't a depth limit.
- rotrux 7y ago
  > There isn't a depth limit. Well looks like you're right, but the nonetheless the reply button wasn't there. Did I sufficiently address your question?
  - e12e 7y ago
    There's a soft rate limit.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > Did I sufficiently address your question? What question are you referring to? Regardless, I suggest that it is better to reply to the comment you're replying to than to reply to some other comment, whether you see a reply link or not. You don't need the reply link to reply to a comment.

rocqua 7y ago

If you suspect bad faith (i.e. don't trust someone) you don't even get in business. If you trust someone but verify their work, you get in business but still limit damage if they turn out to act in bad faith.