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. "

11 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Catch 22 by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    By reading the regulations we change them, so we can't ever know what they actually are.

  2. On Paper? by ufamsm · · Score: 5, Funny

    "quantum computers, at least on paper, can do that calculation millions of times faster than a conventional microprocessor."
    Wow, imagine what they can do on silicone!

    1. Re:On Paper? by richdun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or even on silicon!

      Though what they can do with silicone may be much more, uh, er, entertaining.

    2. Re:On Paper? by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 4, Informative
      Or even on silicon!

      I know you meant this humorously, but it's probably worth noting that in reality, the quantum computers that have been built are NOT in silicon either -- in fact, they're not really based on semiconductors at all.

      They're currently (basically) a test-tube full of specially constructed "soup" of (for example) hydrogen and carbon-14 (yes, the same that's used for carbon dating) suspended in chloroform. The results from this are read using an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) machine, essentially like those used in medical imaging.

      Unfortunately, even the people doing research in this direction admit that there's little likelihood of building NMR based quantum computers of more than a few (half a dozen or so) qubits, which is really too small to do much -- and the NMR-based reading of the results is also quite slow. OTOH, while they may not be particularly practical, they have managed to do real quantum computation this way.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
  3. It won't be surprising when it's illegal to own by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have no doubt the USA, Canada, and the UK will make it illegal to own one to keep code breaking superiority with the governments' spies, rather than criminal organizations.

    Does this mean that I shouldn't bother with a 28 character bank password, since it's all going to be moot anyway?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  4. Why can't other countries develope their own? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Why can't other countries develope their own? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. That's why restrictions on cryptography exports were lifted in the 90s, because the stupid assumption that nobody but Americans could develop strong cryptography was proven false. All the restrictions did was hinder U.S. companies in international markets.

      Under the completely unresearched assumption that the U.S. currently has some lead in quantum computing, all restricting it can do is give some lead time before others catch up and then we have the same situation as we had with cryptography.

      Though the article doesn't make it clear that export restrictions are going to be the main thrust. If they regulate quantum computers within the U.S... well, I can only imagine the justification (teh terrorists crack your bank account!), but the detrimental-to-U.S.-interests aspect will actually be amplified as the rest of the world uses the useful tool and the U.S. forbids it.

      With any luck there will be an unexplainable outbreak of intelligence and sincerity in the government (or the appearance of such caused by commercial lobbyists) and no significant regulations come to pass.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. Pah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quantum mechanics is just a theory, so Quantum Computers will never work.

    Like the Kansas Board of Education, we need to proactively discard these so-called "scientific theories" and go back to Intelligently Designed machines, like the abacus.

  6. Correct me if I'm wrong, but... by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    Can't that same concept be applied to encrypting the data as well? I mean, if it can break current encryption easily, wouldn't the logic here be that it's capable of an encryption that would take even a quantum computer decades to crack? Or am I missing something here?

  7. Re:Setec Astronomy by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 4, Informative
    This breakthrough completely renders useles the concept of the so-called one-way function

    Not at all -- if you believe that quantum computers will actually work well enough to factor in the real world (many computer scientists don't -- the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment), you're only talking about making some particular one-way functions (in this case, factoring) useless.

    In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption -- secure based not on the assumption that factoring is hard (which it may not be), but that quantum physics is true (which it may not be, but a lot of people seem more comfortable with this assumption, at least as far as cryptography is involved).

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

  8. Re:Setec Astronomy by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).