Trust
Who do you trust?
You trust people who can do you harm.
If I give my front door key to my brother, I'm trusting my brother. I'm preventing everyone else from steeling my stuff by locking my door - I don't trust them.
Trust is good, because it is cheap and convenient. If I could trust everybody, I wouldn't need to buy a lock, and I wouldn't need to lock and unlock my door every day.
I divide trust into two aspects : "Altruistic Trust" and "Coercive Trust".
Giving my brother my front door key is altruistic trust. He could walk into my house steal some money with virtually no likelihood of getting caught. He is actively choosing a poorer option by not stealing from me. He is being altruistic.
My house's windows are coercive trust. Anyone can break them easily (and then steal my stuff). The reason windows aren't smashed more often is the likelihood of getting caught. The punishment of jail outweighs the profit from stealing.
Trust in Software
I created this page, because I was thinking about trust in software.
I trust Debian's software repositories for two both altruistic and coercive reasons.
Debian is a wonderful organisation whose only goal is to provide the very best software possible. This isn't true of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle etc. They want to maximise their profits. Creating good software isn't a goal, it it only side-effect of their true goal. I will never have altruistic trust with profit seeking companies. This isn't a judgment, just a fact. IMHO, Profit seeking companies are good.
Now we come to coercive trust. What is stopping Google from emptying my bank account, or hacking into any of my on-line accounts? They could. They have so much data about all of us. They read our emails, they track us across the internet. It would be very easy for their web browser (Chrome) to intercept your key strokes when you sign into your on-line bank. The only think from stopping them is repercussions when they get caught.
Erosion of Expectations
In the early days of Google, they had a motto "Do no evil". They knew that they were Big Brother, with so much data about all of us, but promised not to abuse that power. They dropped that promise many years ago.
Microsoft has control over most PCs. Years ago, they were happy to be ridiculously profitable, and didn't feel the need to act directly against the best interests of their customers. This is no longer true. It is now common place for their software updates to act directly against their "customers" best interests.
When there is only coercive trust, and we *expect* and allow ourselves to be screwed over by our software providers (without repercussions), there is incentive for them to screw us over, so they do.