News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates. Parent comment

Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by dragonwriter on Monday September 11, 2017 @04:22PM (#15221944)
“distrust” is an established English words that means exactly what Google intends. “detrust” is, while not hard to figure out, an unnecessary neologism.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by cperciva on Monday September 11, 2017 @04:33PM (#15222035)
But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing trust in the certificates.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by dragonwriter on Monday September 11, 2017 @04:47PM (#15222158)
> But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing trust in the certificates.

“distrust” alone only communicates not trusting, true. But the word isn't alone, it is in the phrase “plan to distrust”, which communicates that the not-trusting is a change from the status quo that will occur in the future.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by cperciva on Monday September 11, 2017 @05:32PM (#15222573)
which communicates that the not-trusting is a change

Not necessarily. "Plan to distrust" would be consistent with "a company has announced that they're going to start issuing certificates; we won't trust them". You and I know that Symantec is a major CA which is currently trusted by Chrome, but that isn't implied by the headline.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by DenisM on Monday September 11, 2017 @04:53PM (#15222226)
If it makes the two of you feel any better, the US Supreme Court justices also don't agree on whether to use precise or approachable language. Different strokes.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by cortesoft on Monday September 11, 2017 @04:43PM (#15222117)
Isn't 'removing existing trust' the same as 'distrust'? The word 'distrust' in no way implies that you have NEVER trusted them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by dllthomas on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @11:11AM (#15227901)
"Distrust" doesn't imply that you have never trusted them, but it does allow for you never having trusted them, and so communicates less.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by lomnakkus on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @07:17AM (#15237186)
Generally, yes if it's without context, but "Plan to Distrust" or "Going To Distrust" (and similar) certainly implies that there previously was some level of trust. I mean if you had no trust to begin with, why would you even say it that way (or say it at all)?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by dllthomas on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @10:21AM (#15238527)
As pointed out elsewhere, statements of future distrust admit the possibility that there wasn't yet opportunity to trust or distrust. For instance, if Symantec had never produced certificates and announced that they were going to, and Google announced "when they do, we won't trust them".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by frandroid on Monday September 11, 2017 @04:37PM (#15222071)
Why create a new word when we can just add a new adjacent meaning to an existing nearby word...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by kronosEnvy on Monday September 11, 2017 @05:09PM (#15222355)
Language is mutable for this reason. If we didn't add any words but just kept using "nearby words" then we would be DANGER NO GO.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chrome's Plan to Distrust Symantec Certificates by lawnchair_larry on Monday September 11, 2017 @05:13PM (#15222389)
untrust?
[ Parent | on HN ]