Living with trust issues: The human side of zero trust architecture

When I was a kid, grown-ups used to mock dreamers by saying they lived in the clouds. We also had a cartoon TV show with teddy bears jumping from one cloud to another, living in a dream world. I don’t know who inspired us more, but here we are today, connected to digital clouds as if they were the oxygen tube without which we can’t breathe. Inspiration is essential to innovation, but I don’t think anyone could have predicted in the 1980s or 1990s that clouds would play a significant role in our lives today and the complexity involved in ensuring their security.

The unfortunate reality is that we have become so deeply dependent on technology that any disruption to it paralyzes our lives. If any of us lose a smartphone or computer today, it feels like we have lost a vital organ of our body. Even worse, just thinking about the smallest disruption that could disconnect me from the internet or the apps on my smartphone that run on the cloud makes me feel like I can’t breathe. 

As we’ve become more dependent on technology, IT environments have become more complex. This has made threats more intense and could even pose a serious danger. To tackle these growing security challenges — which needed a stronger and more flexible approach — industry experts, security practitioners, and tech providers came together to develop the zero trust architecture (ZTA) framework. This development led to a growing recognition of the importance of prioritizing verification over trust, which made ZTA a cornerstone of modern cybersecurity strategies.

The main idea behind ZTA is to “never trust, always verify.” This approach is quite different from the traditional security models that rely on security tools such as firewalls. Instead of assuming that everything inside the network is safe, ZTA looks at every user, device and application with a bit of suspicion until it can confirm they’re legitimate. By constantly keeping an eye on and checking every access request, ZTA helps cut down the risk of data breaches.

The dangers

Implementing the ZTA framework means that every action the IT and security teams handle is filtered through a security-first lens. However, the over-repeated mantra of “never trust, always verify” may affect the psychological well-being of those implementing it. 

Imagine spending hours monitoring every network activity while constantly questioning if the information is genuine and if people’s motives are pure. This suspicious climate not only affects the work environment but also spills over into personal interactions, affecting trust with others. As the line between professional and personal life blurs, the psychological burden can extend beyond the workplace into personal relationships with partners, family and friends.

The psychological toll

The paradox is that companies’ goal is to grow and sell in international markets, but on the other hand, the “never trust, always verify” mindset sets blockers when people become too suspicious. So, what is the impact on employees when developing new relationships with business partners or prospects? How does doubt affect building trust with foreign cultures? 

When organizations don’t pay attention to the effects of constant skepticism at work, employees and society face consequences. 

When technology becomes the primary source of living for more and more people, this mindset becomes common in society. In this scenario, the main question is how “never trust, always verify” affects the development of our society. ZTA and other security protocols are essential and they must stay; however, we cannot ignore their impact on the mental behavior of people working in this field. In practice, developing solutions for technology threats creates dangerous implications on people’s behavior and their mental health.

Could “never trust, always verify” lead to collective paranoid behaviors in our society? Who is equipped to answer this question? Who can assess the consequences for society? Not only have the internet and social networks isolated younger generations and impacted their ability to form in-person relationships but now one of the leading protocol mottos during their workweek is “never trust.”

Can we fall in love without trust?

Maybe I’m overthinking it, but I can’t stop wondering how these contradictions impact our lives. On the one hand, personal relationships are essential to our existence, and we have been learning how to build them since infancy. On the other hand, social networks have isolated teenagers and young adults, and their current or future employment options in tech include repeating daily mottos that question the trust of the human behavior of users. Are we setting people up for a life of irreconcilable conflicts?

The absurdity is that technology has brought us closer while pushing us further apart. Do we even know how to redefine trust and relationships as we stand at the dawn of the AI era?

Liat Portal is a San Francisco-based business development specialist.