Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Computing Regulation Already?
RMX writes "A new CNet article discusses the possibility of regulating quantum computing.
We already see our top tier US VCs investing in Quantum computing companies outside the country. Apparently the feds seem to think regulating the amount of technology that can be sent overseas will make the US safer." From the article: "Only rough prototypes of quantum computers presently exist. But if a large-scale model can be built, in theory it could break codes used to scramble information on the Internet, in banking, and within federal agencies. A certain class of encryption algorithms relies for security on the near-impossibility of factoring large numbers quickly. But quantum computers, at least on paper, can do that calculation millions of times faster than a conventional microprocessor. "
Even if the US regulates what can be exported, how will that stop other countries from developing their own quantum computers with the same technology? We can't count on everyone else having slower computers if faster ones exist...
In the current day and age where the act of putting up a webpage which can be accessed by anyone around the world with an internet connection is as easy as signing into www.blogspot.com, the effort involved in stopping technology leaks such as encryption far outweighs the benefit of keeping it secret. Relying on an encryption to be safe because the algorithm or solution method is secret is akin to hiding your housekey under your doormat. Somewhere along the line, someone's going to figure it out and you're totally at their mercy after that.
The solution, as it is in most cases of security, is to rely on methods that are simply and thoroughly uncrackable. As we saw the other day, the time to determine the factors of a 640 bit number is 5 months. As computers get faster and algorithms get better, that time will diminish. Once quantum computers arrive, those encryption algorithms will be obsolete.
So use encryption which is not vulnerable. Don't stop the free flow of information to hide your weaknesses.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Actually, no. The breakthrough here isn't just a much faster computer...if that was the cse, you'd be right...just increase the length of your encryption key to compensate. The breakthrough here is a computer capable of solving formerly exponentially-difficult functions in polynomial time, rather than exponential time. It completely rewrites the rules.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
It's the PGP Retardo Fed Fest all over again. Technology advances, you can only keep a secret for so long, especially depending on potentially hostile foreign governments making the devices or support devices. Particularly when those same potentially hostile governments have massive databases of information on US citizens conveniently supplied by US businesses outsourcing their data management.
Straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. Deal with it and move along.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Once upon a time, the U.S. was, more or less, the technology leader. But trends changed when business believed they should cut R&D and all other aspects of doing business that requires technological expertise. (Cutting the numbers, outsourcing, etc) They did this for short-term profit to improve their stock values... whatever the reason, it is and has proven to be extremely short-sighted.
...I don't know why or how, but some people got it in their heads that money and profits are more important than anything else INCLUDING those factors that lead to money and profits!
The result of this, the dot-com bubble bursting and perhaps a few things I can't think of at the moment, there is a massive brain-drain in the US. According to what I've read, there are fewer people signing up for technical careers. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are building their intellectual base to the point of being emerging superpowers.
I remember the U.S. encryption export laws (are they still on the books?) and the supposed reason they were put into place. (Was it to prevent competing nations from getting our superior encryption technology or was it so we could charge people with an additional crime for trafficking in secrets using a more secure tech?) I guess it's not a really good parallel, but I do beleive this type or restriction is a bit too little and too late. The genie is out of the bottle. And unless some serious focus on science, technology and research is made, I believe the U.S. will have lost its last great commodity -- intelligence.
This breakthrough completely renders useles the concept of the so-called one-way function.
Settle down, and don't believe the hype.
So far, we don't know of any efficient quantum algorithms for solving the main problems on lattices. One-way functions and encryption schemes can be based on these lattice problems, too.
There is no general result that says "quantum computers can invert all functions." One-way functions are still believed to exist, even in the face of quantum computing.
As a matter of fact, post 9/11 the US has put alot of pressure on some biotech research labs and universities to NOT publish some of their results (or to leave out key details from some of the papers they publish). The rationale is of course to prevent terrorists from learning too much about deadly diseases, how to replicate them, etc. There are also, apparently, rules preventing "transfer of knowledge" to non-US scientists. So, for instance, if a non-US professor is visiting a US university, the US professors are not allowed to show the guy how certain machines work, or how certain procedures work. The idea is to protect the US (both economically -- avoid giving away information, and security-wise -- avoid bad people learning sensitive details). The problem, from what I've been told, is that the details are too vague, and so most scientists don't really understand what they are allowed to do and not. The whole idea of regulating scientific research is, in my opinion, misguided, because:
1. It flies in the face of the open exchange of information, upon which science is based. Progress is stifled when scientists cannot freely communicate.
2. It's mostly pointless. Labs in other parts of the world are just as up-to-date as the US. Canada, Europe, China, Taiwan, etc... they are all working on these same things (be it biotech or quantum computing). One country putting regulations on it is silly. It would be better to spend the money on international efforts to prepare with *dealing* with the technology, not preventing it from happening.
Take Quantum Computing: frankly, it's going to be worked on whether you like it or not. So you can either make scientists hide their results (in which case a breakthrough may occur in secret, with that person reaping the rewards), or you can have open research, where the whole world will be able to see the problems ahead and make appropriate changes.
Really the whole thing is silly. No lab on earth is going to suddenly jump from our current state to a fully-functional quantum computer. There will be plenty of steps along the way, and plenty of notice that quantum computers are "coming soon." Thus, we will have time (measured in years or decades) to switch our security infrastructure over to something that is secure against quantum computers (such as, for example, quantum encryption). The emphasis should be on planning for how we will use the technology, not limiting its growth.
This is nonsense. Only certain types of encryption schemes (those based on problems like factoring and discrete logarithms) are broken by quantum computers. Other schemes, eg. lattice-based crypto (as mentioned in another comment here) are not known to be breakable by quantum computers. In any case, symmetric encryption schemes like DES are probably not vulnerable (well, quantum computers can get a square-root speed-up, but you can easily make your key longer to counter this).
And what does "combinatorial based encryption schemes" mean, anyway?
You are referring no doubt to quantum cryptography. This is an area which actually is only related to quantum computing loosely at best. We are already capable of implementing it somewhat practically - unlike quantum computing.
Quantum cryptography isn't really cryptography - it is instead a method of transmitting data between two points without relays which can allow sender and receiver to determine whether the transmission was intercepted. In practice it can be used for symmetric key exchange (such as a one time pad). If the key wasn't intercepted you use it, if it was then you just keep trying until the interceptor (or you) gives up.
The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).
The bottom line right now is that it only works for very sensitive communications via line of sight or fiber optic. Most people submitting their credit card numbers to a website don't have a direct fiber optic line without retransmission between them and the merchant.
My guess is that quantum crypto won't ever prove to be very practical for general use - except maybe in space (where lines of sight extend much farther).
In a world of outsourcing to other countries, as well as the fact that the USA doesn't have a monopoly on brain power, this whole idea could be rendered meaningless the moment someone decides to build their Q-puter[tm] in any other country with less onerous regulations!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Broken encryption breaks the internet? That's a new one. Makes one wonder how it got off the ground without, unless those were meant as doomsday paranoia mod points. Pass the tinfoil please...