At first it was challenging to read ruminations on trust from a more critical perspective, as there is a great deal of prior art on it that I suspect this polic

At first it was challenging to read ruminations on trust from a more critical perspective, as there is a great deal of prior art on it that I suspect this policy review journal on internet regulation is overlooking, but after realizing what they are about, I'm rather glad to see this where they are at with it. There is a fairly mature practitioners view of trust, with the benefit of a background in the top level concepts in areas like security protocols, cryptography, information theory, game theory, graph theory, functional languages, state machines, even identity concepts like identity providers and relying parties, and other tools we use in security to talk about trust that didn't seem to be on their radar. However, I am a bit concerned they could use enough of the magic words to work themselves up into a froth and organize a committee to present grievences that non-specialsts cannot reason about (but still condemn in solidarity with the strongest possible words), and that specialists would reject them so bluntly it could seem like cruelty from the outside. It's not what they've said, it's who they are and that they've said something. Looks like they're rounding on us.