Quantum Crypto in the Real World

bednarz writes "Swiss officials are using quantum cryptography technology to protect voting ballots cast in the Geneva region of Switzerland during parliamentary elections to be held Oct. 21, marking the first time this type of advanced encryption will be used for election protection purposes. "We would like to provide optimal security conditions for the work of counting the ballots," said Robert Hensler, the Geneva State Chancellor. "In this context, the value added by quantum cryptography concerns not so much protection from outside attempts to interfere as the ability to verify that the data have not been corrupted in transit between entry and storage.""

Comments

That Doesn't Make Sense

[logicnazi]

If the only concern is non-intentional errors introduced by hardware (or software) then a simple hash should be effective.

Re:That Doesn't Make Sense

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Also not making sense are the reference to the "1 GHz quantum encrypter" and the statement that they're holding back information about how it works for security reasons. Either it's vulnerable or it isn't. And gigahertz are the wrong units of measure. And quantum key exchange doesn't work that fast.

I love this misguided attempt at security

[spagetti_code]

Its kinda like when someone says they are using 4096 bit encryption for their SSL banking, and not realising their password is being stolen by a keylogger.

The biggest problem we face today is *not* the encryption. We have bags of good encryption technologies out there, from AES (symmetric) to a variety of Public Key techniques. The problem actually comes from the people and processes at either end of the encryption pipe.

Guess what - no-ones SSID has (probably) ever been stolen while in transit via SSL over the internet. The millions of SSIDs stolen to date have been theft of laptops or admins not securing their websites properly. Hopefully they will understand this, and spend an equal portion of their time/energy securing their endpoints.

Re:I was born in Switzerland.

[darthflo]

Yep, it's rather bad - about 30-50% of all voters actually vote, but the upcoming elections might have a bit higher participation (some very aggressive campaigning been going on for the past weeks). I think this is directly related to Switzerland being a very direct democracy - with enouh support (that's in numbers of people, not money), almost every decision of the Swiss political leaders can be overturned by the Swiss people.

Re:They never get it

[causality]

The idea of a civics test is not a particular outcome as you seem to suggest (nice straw man btw), but the more basic concepts of how the system is implemented. It would require that the voter knows i.e. what the executive branch does that the legislative does not, the intentions behind the Bill of Rights and what they were designed to protect (and what they were designed to protect from), and that government only really does three things well, which are: defense, law enforcement, and public works. Someone who could pass such a test would probably also know that the Founding Fathers intended for the vast majority (90+%) of government to come from the local and state level during peacetime. Someone who understand very well how the system is implemented would also tend to recognize when it is being abused, either by vote-buying programs or by noticing how asset forfeiture laws directly contradict the 4th Amendment or by observing that the Fairness Doctrine contradicts the First Amendment. Widespread ignorance is the main reason why these things have gone on without much of a challenge, and a requirement that you need to such pass a test before you may vote would help ensure that those who choose to remain ignorant (which is fine, it is their choice) will not collectively have power over everyone else (which is not fine).

It's not so much the idea of a "correct" form of government as much as it would be a requirement that we actually learn from history and understand why some ideas have proven to be better than others. Also why some practices, such as allowing the government to take care of items beyond its purview like the various entitlement programs (sorry but if you're 20 years old and can't figure out that one day you will grow old and will want to retire, and that the time to start saving for that is right now, then perhaps you should serve as an example to others ala the ant and the grasshopper and not consider this the federal government's problem as though you were some baby who needs to be taken care of) tend to lead to the tyranny of a police state. That is the main way that rulers weaken their people and make them dependent; they do so by taking care of things for you that you really should be taking care of yourself yet they never do as good of a job as you could have done; compare the average Social Security payout with someone who has saved money in a Roth IRA for example.

While I won't say that there is One Correct Way to do things (that would be silly in this case), there is certainly a correct approach to the problem of how to govern. That correct form would stay the fuck out of my life whenever possible, would recogize that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they damned well please as long as they do not harm someone against their will (doing drugs in your own home and bothering no one, OK - doing drugs and driving a car and endangering others, NOT OK - see the difference?), and would not use deficit spending and unsustainable income transfer programs and class warfare (progressive income taxes) to buy votes and encourage a "what can I get out of this" mentality. Income taxes are designed to manipulate behavior; that is the only "feature" they offer that a national sales tax does not (and indeed a national sales tax would generate MORE revenue since it would be more difficult to cheat and now foreigners visiting here would also pay taxes) so I don't consider them to be a "correct" form either. Care to tell me what's wrong with these ideas or will you continue to pontificate from a veiled "who is he to say that" stance? Because what you will eventually notice is that there is such a thing as truth (if you say there isn't I will merely ask you "is that true?") and that learning from past mistakes is a good way to get closer to it. Business does this all the time, refining production and marketing ideas etc.; the problem with government is that it doesn't have any competition so the incentive to improve must come from us.