On: Trusted third parties are security holes (2005)

[staplers]

Prescient article. No surprise it was written by Nick Szabo (ideated Bitgold a year before Bitcoin white paper was released).

[nonrandomstring → staplers]

Prescient still, in Europe because of the EU's proposal to stuff browsers with untrustworthy certificates, maybe?

Which raises the question, what does "trust" even mean if you are forced to trust?

If, as the NSA like to say "trust is ability to do harm", then the EU commission are proposing to force potential harm on the entire continent.

[JohnFen → nonrandomstring]

> what does "trust" even mean if you are forced to trust?

You can't be forced to trust anything. You can be forced to use things you don't trust, though.

[nonrandomstring → JohnFen]

Interesting distinction.

How they get you is by "deeming".

Deem is such a very interesting word. To unilaterally suppose, consider or judge something to be. Appears a lot in arrogant, forceful and abusive legalese.

"You are deemed to have accepted..." and so on.

In the "forced trust" society people will be "deemed to trust". Of course asymmetrically, for them (the abusers) it will be seen as a "zero trust" system. For "security" (not yours).

[JanisErdmanis → nonrandomstring]

Trust is a remedy for not being able to detect misbehaviour and prevent that from happening. That's my raw take on it.