Unless a person has given carrying a phone or keep it always powered off, they are already doing so. By definition, a cell phone always registers itself with the nearest cell tower, giving away its approximate location and history of movement 24x7.
A society cannot be "trustworthy", but it can embody "high trust".
(Not wishing to be pedantic for its own sake, there's an important
distinction)
High-trust is the average trust metric between any two randomly chosen
individuals from the set at some time.
Trustworthiness (in one regard) is the historically accumulated record
of positive performance against promises made. But a society is not a
single entity. Maybe society's representatives might be trustworthy.
What I meant in the post was "In using some service, one trusts it will not be abused"; consistent abuse of service is societal - hence, said societies "are not trustworthy".
> there's a push for "zero trust" society. What do you make of that
Given that what happens is what is allowed by the society in which it happens,
the priority is to flee - as fully bad indicators are there. The problem remains, "to where" - identifying a society that still recognizes and defends Dignity.
You raise a keyword that is paramount in our time. Dignity. Privacy is
a tangible and common talking point. Anyone who wants to flee to a
forest hut can obtain privacy, but not dignity, because escape is
undignified.
While the concept of privacy makes it into laws, it's still just a
minor component of a broader "dignity" that so many technologies seem
set on destroying. A dozen or more major thinkers since the 1900s have
noticed that human dignity is very fragile in the face of technology
(Weber, Marx, Fromm, Freud, Jung, Nietzsche...) Surveillance is just
one modern facet of undignified life with technology.
Question: can technology ever enhance dignity?
We've seemingly built a system (society) in which material and social
success hinge on a willingness to forgo dignity. People who have a
strong sense of dignity are disadvantaged and marginalised. So to
answer your "to where?" To the margins. Unless one is prepared to
embrace indignity in visible opposition. Struggle may be the last
refuge of dignity.
According to what would-be objective judgement? Under a threshold you fight; over a threshold you flee. It is just sensible. Dignity may or may not be impacted, heightened or lowered - it depends on details.
> can technology ever enhance dignity
Of course tools and devices are meant to enhance dignity, we build them for a purpose - to serve us and assist.
> We've seemingly built a system (society) in which material and social success hinge on a willingness to forgo dignity. People who have a strong sense of dignity are disadvantaged and marginalised
Very correct. (Careful with those «we».)
> To the margins
Of what is not your society? Look at reality. It is a procustean coexistence of squirrels and Men. There will probably be societies less vile.
This would have worked in trustworthy societies - not these ones. (If a trustworthy society is still known in these times, please inform.)