• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    I treat it more as distrust but verify. Sometimes it’s right, but it has proven enough times to make shit up that it doesn’t get my trust by default. Sometimes it can lead to me searching for the right thing though, so it is sometimes remotely useful. I rarely use it though and run it locally.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      I always interpreted “trust but verify” to be an interpersonal thing, so I don’t see a problem interpreting it as “distrust and verify” with machines.

      • Natanael@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Trust but verify as a concept is irrelevant to the majority of people. It specifically refers to how intel orgs’ staff should handle their long term sources for information. It is applicable specifically when they have a high degree of trustworthiness already, but you still need to be a bit more sure than that.

        If that’s not your situation, you have no use for it.

        You wouldn’t take tips from a off-road rally driver during city traffic, would you?

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I don’t get the metaphor. I take tips from anyone, but I don’t blindly execute them. That is to say, “but verify”.

          I think the colloquial usage of the phrase has differed from its original meaning. I’ve never heard it in the context you’re referring to.