The misunderstanding here is because the word "trust" has been misappropriated in this context to mean something slightly different from its everyday meaning.

The misunderstanding here is because the word "trust" has been misappropriated in this context to mean something slightly different from its everyday meaning. You do indeed have to trust the designers, manufacturers and suppliers of your equipment, in the sense that they are in a position to cause you harm without a realistic way to prevent that beforehand. However, when "trust" is used in the sense of "what is allowed", what we're actually talking about is sovereignty or authority, not "trust". I believe the word is used in this context because giving a third party authority over your device necessarily puts them in a position of trust, but it is actually the authority that is important here, and the fact that you have some measure of trust in a party does not imply that the party should also be granted authority. If you recast the GP's comment in these terms, I believe it captures the essence without muddying the waters with "trust": > On a device I own, there should be no parties with more authority than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.