I've never trusted the government or the internet. I trust my family and friends.
"...the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they would not be ruled despotically but also because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men; (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them."
"…and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…"
In my view, the current government abuses and corruption are most apparent in the surveillance state but extend well into its other functions: industry regulation, social welfare programs, military-industrial spending, national security, judicial system, public education, etc.
We need to recall that our government exists to "secure [the] rights" that people have regardless of the existence of government. We should not trust government, as a general rule.
People all across the political spectrum must evaluate their expectations of government through the lens of the NSA revelations, since I believe they indicate the depth and breadth of the corruption of the entire system.
> We should not trust government, as a general rule.
100% agreement. Just as a personal operating default, I also tend to distrust people that tell me I should put more trust in government. Trust belongs in society and business, not in politicians and bureaucrats.
BTW, I sent you some btc once upon a time. I love your site/service.
I only "trust" distrust. Mutual suspicion of belligerents (adversaries) to keep each other in check. Balance of powers.
I was a very engaged election integrity activist. The reason elections in the USA worked as well as they did for as long as they did is because no one trusted the system, each other, etc. Hence the Australian ballot system of voting. If all the players agree to the count, then I as Joe Citizen have greater confidence (vs trust) in the results.
The moment anyone mentions "trust", I assume there's a scam of some sort, either by default or by design.
Bruce Schneier may be the wrong blogger for you to follow, then. He talks about trust all the time. To quote his recent book:
> [T]oday, I passed several strangers on the street without any of them attacking me. I bought food from a grocery store, not at all concerned that it might be unfit for human consumption. I locked my front door, but didn't spare a moment's worry at how easy it would be for someone to smash my window in. Even people driving cars, large murderous instruments that could crush me like a bug, didn't scare me.
>Most amazingly, this worked without much overt security. I don't carry a gun for self-defense, nor do I wear body armor. I don't use a home burglar alarm. I don't test my food for poison. I don't even engage in conspicuous displays of physical prowess to intimidate other people I encounter.
>It's what we call “trust.” Actually, it's what we call “civilization.”
His point is that we need trust. You can't actually watch for every possible betrayal. Trust in fear of retribution will suffice, but there needs to be some trust, or there can be no complex civilization.
re Civilization, I'm in the Robert Wright "Non-zero" camp, where progress is made when non zero sum alternatives are found to win/lose (zero sum) situations.
As for Schneier, he's great, have a few of his books, read his blog. The distinction he doesn't make is between governance and civility. Or perhaps its a spectrum. If someone else has power over me, or delegated to them thru me (eg elections), I'm always going to be very skeptical.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has found a better answer to the conundrum of governance than balance of powers (mutual distrust).
"There are all kinds of devices invented for the protection and preservation of countries: defensive barriers, forts, trenches, and the like…But prudent minds have as a natural gift one safeguard which is the common possession of all, and this applies especially to the dealings of democracies.
What is this safeguard? Skepticism.
This you must preserve. This you must retain. If you can keep this, you need fear no harm."
"...the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they would not be ruled despotically but also because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men; (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them."
Politics By Aristotle
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html