Slashdot Mirror


China Launches World's First Quantum Communications Satellite (theverge.com)

hackingbear quotes a report from The Verge: China's quantum network could soon span two continents, thanks to a satellite launched earlier today. Launched at 1:40pm ET, the Quantum Science Satellite is designed to distribute quantum-encrypted keys between relay stations in China and Europe. When working as planned, the result could enable unprecedented levels of security between parties on different continents. China's new satellite would put that same fiber-based quantum communication system to work over the air, utilizing high-speed coherent lasers to connect with base stations on two different continents. The experimental satellite's payload also includes controllers and emitters related to quantum entanglement. The satellite will be the first device of its kind if the quantum equipment works as planned. According to the Wall Street Journal, the project was first proposed to the European Space Agency in 2001 but was unable to gain funding.

52 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Any military use? by quenda · · Score: 1

    I'm confused, by QM generally, and this in particular.
    Is there any military application, or are those guys just going to keep using boring old physical key distribution, and one-time-pads for the serious stuff?

    1. Re:Any military use? by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Informative

      The military application is there if the quantum technology is protecting secret communication to a level that makes it impossible for anyone external to view it.

      I wonder if they have been able to also implement a way to detect if someone listens to the signal using entanglement. It would be quite the deal if it was possible to detect that on a wireless signal.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Any military use? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This has been proven to work with fibre optic cable. You can't observe a photon without affecting it, and that observation is then detectable. The only difference is that now they are using lasers through the air rather than through fibre optic cables.

      It's not perfect, it's still possible that ways will be found to observe the light in a way that the tamper detection doesn't pick up on, but turning that into something you can reasonably hide in a position to intercept those photons is a not insignificant challenge.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Any military use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "It's still possible..."

      You're either referring to side-channel attacks, which exploit imperfections within specific implementations (see "qauntum hacking"), or you believe fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics (specifically the "no cloning theorem") are wrong. The former is legitimate, but not fundamental, and the latter is contrary to all current evidence.

    4. Re:Any military use? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yes, side-channel attacks based on weaknesses in the implementation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Any military use? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Not very usefull. Part of the issue is, they send a stream, and detect a stream, but the actual results depend on both sendinder and detector choices. Only if they are aligned do they get a definite signal, if not, its probalistic.

      So your data can't match their data, because you don't know what they are measuring on each measurement. Any one of them could be bunk for you or bunk for them, and you wont know which is which, or what measurement they got when you got it wrong and they didn't.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Any military use? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Basically, quantum communications like is is a communications channel that reveals when it is being tapped. The accuracy of this detection is very high.

      Hence, I can trivially send you a one-time pad. If you detected a tap, we toss it out, I generate more numbers, and we try again. So, it vastly improves security and key-distribution.

      It gets worse, of course, if I use that one time bad over a quantum encryption channel.

      Now, the channel does have more noise than a standard channel, but that's fixable with parity bits, etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Any military use? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      That's why this satellite won't deliver its promises at my opinion. I doubt it is possible to maintain decent quantum characteristics to perform quantum cryptography in this environment. They will increase the intensity of the laser beam to decrease the error rate which would be otherwise unacceptable. This will open the channel to side attacks.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    8. Re:Any military use? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they have been able to also implement a way to detect if someone listens to the signal using entanglement. It would be quite the deal if it was possible to detect that on a wireless signal.

      Yes. That is entirely the point of using entanglement.

    9. Re:Any military use? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We have had optical sensors that can pick up a single photon reflected from a mirror on the moon for decades. While there will certainly be some losses, they are not insurmountable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Any military use? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      This has been proven to work with fibre optic cable. You can't observe a photon without affecting it, and that observation is then detectable. The only difference is that now they are using lasers through the air rather than through fibre optic cables.

      It's not perfect, it's still possible that ways will be found to observe the light in a way that the tamper detection doesn't pick up on, but turning that into something you can reasonably hide in a position to intercept those photons is a not insignificant challenge.

      Suppose there were a 100 laser transmitter/receiver pairs on the satellite, set aside for keys. If you use one encrypted message to contain information about which of the 100 lasers would be used to transmit the true key, and when (in milliseconds of time from UTC), I think that there would be a pretty good secure system. One would have to monitor all 100 laser transmitters concurrently, and also know which one sent the message identifying which transmitter will transmit the true key.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    11. Re:Any military use? by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      Suppose there were a 100 laser transmitter/receiver pairs on the satellite, set aside for keys...

      Quantum encryption is not about obscurity. Also, I doubt there would be any transmitter/receiver, but rather it would use reflection. I don't think there would be any receiver/transmitters, as this would break the quantum channel and make reading the initial quantum signal impossible.

      It my understanding that QE is about making sure that only one person/entity can "read" the signal and once the data is read, it cannot be resent in the exact same format. This is good for both sending a one-time-pad for sending standard encryption keys without possibility for interception or otherwise noticing that someone has intercepted the signal and then not sending those encryption keys.

  2. China Launches Ball of Buzzwords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    FTFY.

  3. Really? You need to ask this? by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, I would say that secure key distribution has a military application - secure communications.
    Good on them I say, pushing the limits further, real science..

    Compare that with the reaction of the DNC to their hacked emails, by creating a board of lawyers
    and politicos to fix their security problems. I can only assume by pushing for more spying and
    monitoring laws, less encryption, and backdoors in everything, because that helps, right?

    Face it, the Chinese are rapidly become world technology leaders, and denial wont stop it.
    These days it looks like the Chinese are working hard to become the new Renaissance state, while
    the west is rushing to emulate the worst of Maoist stats China through totalitarian control and monitoring
    of their citizens..

    Sad really, but inevitable with a western population that has become too focused on maximising their own
    personal comfort, and running in fear at anything that is unfamiliar or uncomfortable - basically ceding total
    control to a state that is more than happy to grab it and run. Those in power will be laughing all the way
    to the collapse, with little thought to what happens after.

    But dont worry, just keep supporting your liberal left, or your religious right, and ignore the fact that both
    sides are playing the same gave of totalitarian control at any cost, while the east gets on with actual
    production and development.

    1. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by invid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China's growth has been impressive, and it is a fantastically dynamic country, but it still has significant disadvantages. The portion of its population that is still in poverty exceeds the entire population of the United States, and its government is ramping up its repression of dissent, which is a troubling sign. The transition to a consumer economy will not be easy, and there is still the danger of uprisings. I'm old enough to remember talk of the Soviet Union destroying the American Empire, a united Europe destroying the American Empire, OPEC taking over the world, Japan rising and surpassing America, and now of a Chinese Century. Somehow the US is still on top. The US has so many inherent advantages, and the rest of the world so many inherent disadvantages, I don't see a loss of American dominance until at least 2050. China will require a significant social reorganization before it can surpass the US, and it looks like the pressures on infrastructure caused by climate change will probably derail that possibility.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    2. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by invid · · Score: 2

      The two biggies are GDP and ability to project military power globally. You can throw in national currency as global currency with highest market cap. If China exceeds the US in those I would say it has surpassed the US.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    3. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by gtall · · Score: 1

      "Good on them I say, pushing the limits further, real science..

      Compare that with the reaction of the DNC to their hacked emails, by creating a board of lawyers
      and politicos to fix their security problems."

      Apples and oranges. One is a political-technical set of problems, the other is a purely technical problem. Although your level of thinking might be one reason why the Chinese would supplant the Americans.

      China is anything but a Renaissance state. When they return Tibet to the Tibetans, when they stop their ridiculous claims to the S. China Sea, when they institute actual rule of law instead of rule by the Politburo, when they reform their system to a democracy or republic instead of a kleptocracy, when they respect copyrights,, etc., then we might consider them a candidate for being a Renaissance state.

      "Sad really, but inevitable with a western population that has become too focused on maximising their own
      personal comfort, and running in fear at anything that is unfamiliar or uncomfortable - basically ceding total
      control to a state that is more than happy to grab it and run. Those in power will be laughing all the way
      to the collapse, with little thought to what happens after."

      Why, thank you for recognizing the Chinese state as it actually exists rather than the one you allege further up.

    4. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The portion of its population that is still in poverty exceeds the entire population of the United States"

      The Chinese cohort of anything exceeds the entire population of the United States. This is also true of the number of Chinese brains being applied to science/tech problems of every kind.

      We fear what our lawyers cannot suppress.

    5. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Good on them I say, pushing the limits further, real science..

      This.

      Meanwhile, our NSA, who should be supporting this sort of R&D, is busy peaking at our porn habits (under right wing administrations) or tracking down our offshore bank accounts (when the left is in power).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by GabeGhearing · · Score: 1

      EU isn't a country... also without the UK the entire rest of the EU is smaller than the US.

    7. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      The portion of its population that is still in poverty exceeds the entire population of the United States

      Where did you get this? All the sources I can find say that the poverty rate in china is below 15% (actually similar to the US) which is only something like 200 million people.

      Somehow the US is still on top.

      By what metric exactly? All measures of education, poverty, GDP per capita, health outcomes, etc. do not put us in first place. Far from it actually.

    8. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by invid · · Score: 1

      EU isn't a country... also without the UK the entire rest of the EU is smaller than the US.

      A group of countries can work together to become the dominant global power, both economically and militarily. A united Europe does have the potential to become the dominant global power, and when making strategic plans for the future you must take potentials into account. But as demonstrated by Brexit, Europe lacks the common will to do so.

      Speaking of potentials, if Russia and Germany aligned together (like they did in the late 1930s) they could become a dominant global power. Germany with its high-tech economy and Russia with its natural resources and military/intelligence structure, they compliment each other well. The two were getting very cozy not too long ago, but the crisis in Ukraine strained their ties.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    9. Re: Really? You need to ask this? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      The issue that bothers me, is that asymmetrical encryption can utilize multiple keys for decrption, even when the keys are derived from quantum properties, by two parties, who is to know if there isn't a backdoor key thrown in the mix, on the satellite itself?

    10. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by invid · · Score: 1

      By what metric exactly? All measures of education, poverty, GDP per capita, health outcomes, etc. do not put us in first place. Far from it actually.

      Raw power.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    11. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      lol okay. Tell me how that matters to anyone that's not a megalomaniac. Does it put food on the table? Help people pay their hospital bills?

    12. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...the Chinese are working hard to become the new Renaissance state, while the west is rushing to emulate the worst of Maoist stats China through totalitarian control and monitoring of their citizens.

      What the actual fuck?! As I write this it is modded +5. This is probably the most bullshit I've ever seen crammed into one senctence and it's at +5. Again, Whisky Tango Foxtrot?!

    13. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by invid · · Score: 2

      lol okay. Tell me how that matters to anyone that's not a megalomaniac. Does it put food on the table? Help people pay their hospital bills?

      This is actually an interesting topic. Is it more beneficial for an individual to live in a country with more or less global power? Does global power translate to a better life for a country's citizens? An argument against this is that a global power has to spend resources outside of the country to maintain its power, like for the military, and for financial aid to weaker allies. But there are economic returns for those military expenditures--military dominance does lead to better access to different markets and resources, whether gotten implicitly or explicitly. For the individual, you could say that it's best to live in a small country under the protection of a larger power, like Denmark, where the country can invest more in its citizens. But Greece is also a small country living under a larger power, and Greece has lost economic control over its destiny. Ultimately, the destiny of Denmark relies on the benevolence of greater powers. I'll tell you this, when travelling abroad there is a big difference in how you are treated between being an American and being from, let's say, Sudan. It's a sad commentary on the current state of affairs, but a human life from a country with greater socio/economic/military power is treated as having more value than a life from a poor country.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    14. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      military dominance does lead to better access to different markets and resources, whether gotten implicitly or explicitly.

      I'm just saying, looking at outcomes this is apparently not helping us very much. Our quality of life is substantially lower than countries with little or no military power.

    15. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember talk of the Soviet Union destroying the American Empire,

      I'm old enough (and lived right at the cold war front lines) to remember the USSR came close to it. The USSR lost because it fell for Papa Reagan's Star Wars arms-race trap. The USSR could have continue as-is if it had not attempted to expand. BTW, this should not be construed as an endorsement of the Soviets.

      a united Europe destroying the American Empire,

      I never heard of this one, though the EU is the largest market on the planet. It doesn't need to destroy the US, it simply needs to flourish. Economic dominance is not a zero-sum game.

      OPEC taking over the world,

      They almost did but technology had made it possible for the US (and countries like Russia) to tap into oil and energy reservoirs that, at the time, were considered impossible. Natural resources is what has allowed the US to survive the OPEC, not an intrinsic national value found nowhere else.

      Japan rising and surpassing America,

      Well, it did. 1970, that's the year Japan overtook the US in auto manufacturing. The big-three never recovered from this. Ask them folks in Detroit if this is a falsehood. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea pretty much took over the semiconductor industry also.

      What has halted Japan's expansion was a real state bubble coupled with demographics. It has an ageing population. And here is where the US truly excels Japan. It has a greater female participation in the workforce. Should Japan were to make the necessary changes (and they are) and facilitates married women to rejoin the workforce, it would boost the shit out of its economy.

      As it is, Japan doesn't need to change anything, and it still has gas in its tank to preserve a 1st world quality of life well into the 2050s. We cannot make that argument with the US.

      and now of a Chinese Century. Somehow the US is still on top

      Is it? By total national GDP, of course. But individually? Look around. We have millions of people who, quite crudely, aren't worth a damn economically, who will never adapt, who can't compete.

      The Chinese are burdened with poverty, but that poverty is being eradicated (same in India and Mexico). Yes, they have as many poor people as people in the US, but they also have as many people already taking part in the production of wealth. And that number is increasing.

      The US can still remain on top by focusing on education, on creating an adaptable workforce. So far the country is doing shit about it because it is too busy telling itself that it is still top dog.

    16. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The Chinese cohort of anything exceeds the entire population of the United States. This is also true of the number of Chinese brains being applied to science/tech problems of every kind.

      And yet they still haven't

      • Designed a decent car (was going to leave off "decent", but found out they actually do have 4 manufacturers, who knew? You do now)
      • Sent an astronaut beyond low earth orbit.
      • return a sample from the moon
      • etc etc etc

      I have yet to see original projects or even leading technology coming from China. This may be the first but I haven't researched it enough. I seem to recall quantum light communications via lasers being demo'd 5+ years ago.

      People used to talk shit like this about the Japanese in the 50's and early 60's. They did also with the Taiwanese and South Koreans.

    17. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Japan has like half the population of the US and half the GDP. China has like 4x the population of the US.

    18. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      How many of those countries are protected, even if only indirectly, by the US?

    19. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Face it, the Chinese are rapidly become world technology leaders"

      On put another way, they're resuming their position as world technology leaders. It's only something they lost since the industrial revolution and they didn't lag by much all along.

    20. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Raw power."

      Not even that.

      Military spending yes - three times as much as China (#2), more than the next 19 combined and more than everything from there down combined.

      The USA has a higher percentage GDP spend on its military than the Soviet Union did at its peak - and it was overspending on the military which finally broke the USSR. That spending is coming at expense of infrastructure (you have bridges and highways rotting), education and healthcare.

      How long until the USA breaks - and who will help keep the nuclear weapons out of dangerous hands when it does?

    21. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      People used to talk in the 80's about how the Japanese with their superior technology and management theories were going to displace the US as the number 1 economic power in the world, too. Didn't and won't happen. For China it remains to be seen but is not a sure thing by any stretch.

      For the reasons I've mentioned in other places - a real estate crash followed by population decline, not because of an inherent American strength. As it stands Japan can still guarantee a high standard of life for its citizenship until the 2050s. We cannot make the same claim the US. Hell, 1/3 of our schools are dysfunctional and we cannot even guarantee lead-free water to our people.

    22. Re:Really? You need to ask this? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Japan has like half the population of the US and half the GDP. China has like 4x the population of the US.

      Don't waste your words. People in this country still think things will go back to the glory economic days of the 50's and 60's... all by prayers alone. The people who get it are getting ready for it through education and versatility. The ones who do not, we'll, I guess they are going to find out the hard way.

  4. No, its borked by the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a human readable primer on it:
    http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/how-quantum-cryptography-works-and-by-the-way-its-breakable/

    I've marked the backchannel of extra filtering information with a **** below. You will see this in all Quantum signal experiments. An extra channel of information used to fixup the result. Think about it for a second, you're exchanging KEYS not information, and the KEY exchange itself requires an exchange of a backchannel in a secure way!

    How it works for light:

    Alice uses a light source to create a photon.
    The photon is sent through a polarizer and randomly given one of four possible polarization and bit designations — Vertical (One bit), Horizontal (Zero bit), 45 degree right (One bit), or 45 degree left (Zero bit).
    The photon travels to Bob's location.
    Bob has two beamsplitters — a diagonal and vertical/horizontal - and two photon detectors.
    Bob randomly chooses one of the two beamsplitters and checks the photon detectors.
    The process is repeated until the entire key has been transmitted to Bob.
    ****Bob then tells Alice in sequence which beamsplitter he used.
    Alice compares this information with the sequence of polarizers she used to send the key.
    Alice tells Bob where in the sequence of sent photons he used the right beamsplitter.
    Now both Alice and Bob have a sequence of bits (sifted key) they both know.

    ---------------------

    The assumption is that the attacker cannot see the key exchange message without affecting it by more than a statistical error.
    However real world attacks mean you can read the photon and send a similar polarized photon to Bob. In the Swedish attack on this, they sent LOTS of photons, some of which were bound to have the correct polarization, in effect they overwhelmed the detector which has no way of knowing if photons are at both slits because Bob only checks one slit. But an easier attack is to attack the back channel of info. Since Alice keeps sending till she thinks Bob has the full key, an attacker can force her to keep sending till *he* has the key from his choice of photons by intercepting Bobs message back and adding his own mistakes to it.

    In the real world fiber optics have repeaters (electrical signal boosters) and QC key exchange does not work.
    In the real world fiber optics lose photons, and you cannot send individual photons and reliably receive it at the other end.

    Here (the space satellites) it likely also has no purpose, they could not ensure the single 'photon' is sent and received, it would be lost in the atmosphere, so there will be extra fixup signals. You could attack that extra-fixup too in a real world system, as well as the back channel. e.g. man in balloon intercepts the signal and sends a fake signal. He can't generate a real fake signal fast enough, so he generates his own. Did he guess right? No? Send the missing-bit signal and try again. Those sorts of attacks will likely be possible with their real world implementation.

    1. Re:No, its borked by the real world by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      You have some misconceptions about quantum key distribution. Cheifly, though, is the misconception that Alice and Bob are trying to transmit a pre-existing key. No, with QKD, they are trying to generate new key. Alice doesn't stop when she thinks Bob has "the full key" - there is no full key - but rather when she thinks Bob has received enough photons in order to generate (after sifting, error-correction, and privacy amplification) a key long enough for their intended purpose. Fundamental is that each bit Alice transmits is chosen randomly, with no repetition, no retransmission. That also implies that photon loss isn't the issue you think it is.

      I'm not sure that GP explanation is a misconception as you pointed out. First, pre-existing or randomly select on the fly has nothing to do with the GP explanation. The explanation omitted or disregard how each bit is from. To be honest, is the big picture (abstract) changed in the explanation to point out that each bit is randomly generated on the fly? It is only the detail bit and specification of QKD.

      The meaning of "full key" and "stop when think it is enough" look similar to me from an abstract concept. Once the encryption key length is long enough, it is a full key. Again, the GP explanation doesn't specifically said that but rather said "entire key." This may look as a misconception; however, it gives an easier understanding as an abstract. If someone really wants to get into detail of how to transmit keys, then the person could be seeing as difference.

      However, I am not sure whether the transmission occurs in the back channel (or why they would implement it that way). From the wiki, it explicitly said that the transmission is via "public classical channel" which should not be a "back channel" as the GP said. Not sure why...

      ... However, any two pairs of conjugate states can be used for the protocol, and many optical fibre based implementations described as BB84 use phase encoded states. The sender (traditionally referred to as Alice) and the receiver (Bob) are connected by a quantum communication channel which allows quantum states to be transmitted. In the case of photons this channel is generally either an optical fibre or simply free space. In addition they communicate via a public classical channel, for example using broadcast radio or the internet. ...

  5. Re:Spanning two continents by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    The NSA and about 2 dozen other TLA's have every word of that conversation recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.

  6. Re:ei helena filha da puta by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    vai dar teu cuzinho até engravidar, pra ver se tu tem uma filha com merda na cabeça como você.

    So have you been able to mug anyone's gold medal yet?

  7. I find your naivety charming by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You do know that China simply steals or buys its way into a lot of technological progress, right? Both the USA and Taiwan have recently arrested people who were happy to pass on secrets of various kinds to their masters in the PRC for money.

    But I also am a bit amused that you seem to think that quantum encryption - if they even pull it off - won't be used for bad purposes for the state. Maybe you're not aware of this, but people in China are not allowed Twitter or Facebook accounts because - I kid you not kid - the government is terrified of their possible use to mobilize the masses against the Communist Party. Mark Zuckerburg can suck up to them all he wants and continue to learn Mandarin in his spare time but it's not going to get them to relax their paranoia against a street revolution.

    I have a question not directed at you. Let's just say for example that they get this to work. Let's say that for now there is no way to break it. Is there a way to mess with the photons so that even if the encryption can't be broken, nobody on either end can use it for communication because it gets scrambled while going between the 2 sites?

    1. Re:I find your naivety charming by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      To answer your question: It's a beam of light. If you put an opaque object in the beam, it will henceforth not work for communication until that object is removed.

      More practically, I would imagine a similar laser aimed at the same receptor, would introduce so many spurious photons that it would be unusable. Similar to radar/radio jamming.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I find your naivety charming by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "You do know that China simply steals or buys its way into a lot of technological progress"

      Once upon a time the USA achieved its objectives by doing the same thing - and if you don't believe that it's still doing so now, you're somewhat blinkered. ALL countries are doing it, only not so blatently as china (now) or 19th century USA (which was extremely blatent. Ask the Lumiere Brothers how Thomas Edison stole the copyright for _their_ film and sucessfully sued them for exhibiting their own work in New York City.

  8. So... by bytesex · · Score: 1

    This is for Quantum Key Distribution, right?

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:So... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      China knows it is totally surrounded by US, UK listening stations and has been for decades. The NSA, GCHQ used mil and civilian ships, sat, manned and unmanned over flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., regional bases to try and collect everything. Tai Mo Shan, Little Sai Wan sites could not be hidden...
      China really had a different policy against such expensive and total collection methods. Flood the local gov and mil with random electronic chatter about big projects, massive support needs that might or might not have ever existed. Any real work would be done on site with no outside chatter.
      The West got everything e.g. what followed Canyon (satellite) like systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... but it was all useless. The exact mil/gov communications from an East Germany or Soviet Union who only used their very expensive new communications networks for very official work everyday was great...
      China flooded its networks with junk mil/gov grade messages and the West had to just collect it and try and work out it was all fake...
      Creativity and imagination fooled the most advanced and expensive US and UK collection systems ever created for decades.
      China even managed to get its own cleared local workers into UK collection sites in the region. Onsite chatting up low paid UK experts on their first international posting. The stress of a very low wage, top skills but not getting promoted, away from the UK, nice to just have a chat..
      Spy networks in and around all US and UK regional bases was extensive. The US and UK ability to protect against such cleared staff contact was often very lacking.
      The West got so unhappy with the total lack of any useful any product it had to resort to risky collection methods from within China's embassies. Video and voice was recorded. (8 Nov 2013) "The Chinese Embassy bugging controversy" http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

      So the next step is key distribution:
      An endless one time pad for any length of message needed in real time globally. No embassy will ever run out of the ability to communicate back to China given any local event or vast data set. The US/UK will know an embassy sent a message but like with a classic one time pad, contents could be anything.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. basic science anyone? by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    utilizing high-speed coherent lasers to connect with base stations on two different continents

    -from TFS

    A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light coherently.

    - From Wikipedia

    Lasers also operate at the speed of light (albeit the encoding is slower than that). Me wonders what a llow speed incoherent laser looks like? Maybe signal mirrors? What type of technology is China using? /sarcasm

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  10. and USA too by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    You do know that China simply steals or buys its way into a lot of technological progress, right?

    and You do know that the USA simply stole or bought its way into a lot of technological progress too, right?

  11. It's just me or... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    It's just me or this seems a load of shit?

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  12. Political use by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    I suspect the satellite launch has more of political than military purpose. China's economy is going downhill and so it seems is its hopes of Olympic gold, its standing as number 2 (behind US) being threatened: http://www.reuters.com/article...

    Who knows, maybe the propaganda bureau decided some good news is in order.

  13. Not Viable by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    Laser communication between distant satellites is fraught with difficulties.

    Lasers have a divergence greater than zero. Over huge distances, this results in a very weak signal at the receiving end.

    Lasers exit through an aperture. Diffraction occurs. That spreads the beam, too.

    Lasers have speckle, even if the ends of the chamber (gas or solid state) are polished to be atomically smooth. The lasing cavity, you see, is not one-dimensional, resulting in path-length variation for the lasing photons. So, aside from the minor wavelength spread that this induces, it also produces speckle. No one has devised a solution for speckle, nor will they for the next 20 years or so.

  14. Entanglement? Wow - in my lifetime! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    I am more excited to see how the communication using QM entanglement works!

    If it works (per theory), then there would be nearly zero delay, as communication would not be via EM waves (which travel at the slow speed of light).

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  15. Re:Banksters, Lawyers, Hollywood and Arms Makers by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    They are going to screw you and I if Trump does not win, they will feel emboldened for the final strike. The one which will prove deadly.

    Tin foil alert! Tin foil alert!