So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 2**1,000, which is to say about 10**300. That's a very big number indeed. How big? It is much, much greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.
I am struggling to come up with some way that this part makes any sense at all. It sounds like the kind of thing someone who is definitely not an expert the area would say. He is expressing the number of possible configurations of 1,000 qubits but that is only something you care about if you are simulating a quantum computer with a classical one. The whole point of quantum computers is that you don't have to do that.
Also a simple counterexample to this sentiment is given later on, when mentioning that Google already has a 72-qubit computer. Just storing the states of a 72-qubit machine would be substantially more than the entire capacity of the internet, implying that since we somehow did it then enumerating all the states is not necessary.
If you are only hiring whoever is best for the job then you are probably hiring a lot of foreign workers that will do it for way less money. Should the government allow that to happen or do you believe in hiring laws when they protect you?
Also, if you are running your company with only the end goal in mind then you are probably doing something illegal. Laws exist to protect the interests of society, not the interests of individual companies or people.
Not sure where you get the 10 number from. The largest US employer, the federal government, gives 13 days for 3 years or less of employment, 20 days after that and 26 days at 15 years.
Also, if you work an engineering job you likely get at least 4 weeks paid vacation, possibly 6 or 8 weeks. Teachers can't take time off in the middle of the year, the summer break is their equivalent of vacation time.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that teachers have 3 months off in the summer. Most places go well into June (here the last day this year was the 19th) and teachers have to be back in the middle of August.
IANAL, but I am pretty sure that is not right. They are protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which allows websites to censor or filter their content and still be protected.
They are not common carriers. They are protected by section 230 of the CDA, a totally different thing that allows them to do any censoring or filtering that they want and still be protected.
No, it is a problem with mixed-messages which can have unencrypted HTML next to encrypted text. You can trick the client into decrypting a message you send to them and giving it back to you.
Nope, the problem is that an adversary can send you a carefully crafted email, which inside of it has an old encrypted email that they want to break into, and due to automatic decryption and rendering of HTML elements the plaintext of that encrypted email gets exfiltrated to a target server. The core issue is actually in the way MIME works with multi-part emails where you are allowed to have some unencrypted HTML and some encrypted segments together in the same email.
That is also not true. It is SUPER conditionally secure. That condition even has a name: the RSA assumption. I'm not sure at this point what you are even trying to argue.
No, no, no. A thousand times no. Information theoretic security means that no matter how much computational power you have you cannot break it, because you are fundamentally missing some information that is necessary to determine a unique solution. RSA is not that. No ciphers in use are that, except the OTP.
This TLS is a bad idea. Whoever thought about it assumes that there is a private key known only to the certificate authority. What if for some reason a third party finds this key or accesses it remotely? Suddenly, all communications, including the ones of the morons who came up with the idea, will be wide open to everybody.
You could say the same thing about TLS. If Verisign can make valid certificates then everybody can. Oh wait that's not how it actually works... We should stop pretending that it is a simple situation with a simple answer because it isn't. There may very well be a secure way to implement backdoors. If you are really against the idea then you should be arguing the more salient point that they shouldn't be allowed to have a backdoor because government access is inherently not desirable/constitutional/whatever.
...except that no ciphers anyone actually uses are perfectly secret anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. As soon as you decide the OTP is too difficult to use then you leave the world of provable encryption and enter reality.
Okay... but if you get shot do you go to the hospital and ask them to remove all foreign objects from your body or do you tell them to take out the bullet? There have been countless accusations of sexual assault by Uber drivers, not so much other types of violence.
The DAG is not asking for a universal back door, he wants something more like key escrow. Apple will keep a copy of every user's key which can be used by Apple to decrypt data if they are served with a warrant. Alternatively, they could have a separate "master key" for each device that unlocks the secure enclave and decrypts the phone. These keys could be set at manufacture and stored in an air-gapped vault or something.
There are ways to do this that don't introduce a lot of risk of accidental discovery or leaking. This is proven by the fact that Apple already has a master key that opens every iPhone, in the form of their root signing key, and it has never leaked. I am more worried about the precedent this would set. Even if you trust the US justice system (which lots of people don't), once we have this system set up in the US then China, Russian, etc. will ask for the same thing. That is not power that we want them to have. We should set an example for the world of absolutely secure devices that not the manufacturer, government, anyone can get into.
It bothers me how his argument is almost entirely a plea to emotion. It might as well be, "think about the children." Even if he is correct, that some violent criminals are getting away with crimes because we can't prosecute due to strong encryption, how many of those incidents are we willing to pay for more secure devices? It pains me to say it, but if we had to trade 10 murders for a few billion dollars of economic damage due to preventable cyber crime, I think there are very few people who would choose the second option. We know human lives have a price in this country or else we would have universal health care by now...
Another aggravating point in his speech is that he says, "we [the DoJ] are in the business of preventing crime and saving lives." That is not true. He is in the business of prosecuting crime and getting convictions. There are actually very few incentives for him to reduce crime. If removing encryption let him convict more criminals, and then had the side-effect of increasing cyber crime, leading to more criminal convictions, that is a win/win for him.
lol okay, now you are changing the definition of "exploded" to "anything that is at all tied to population increase." Literally any type of ownership of anything has exploded according to your logic. Maybe crime was reduced by the explosion of sex toy ownership? People have better things to do by themselves now.
Actually gun ownership has gone steadily down, so that's entirely wrong. But hey, don't be discouraged, maybe next time you make up a fact off the top of your head you will be accidentally right! http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%2...
No because you use extremely specific language and we had this exact same exchange last time where you projected all your insecurities onto me. Seriously, talk to someone about your issues.
Slashdot Mirror
So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 2**1,000, which is to say about 10**300. That's a very big number indeed. How big? It is much, much greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.
I am struggling to come up with some way that this part makes any sense at all. It sounds like the kind of thing someone who is definitely not an expert the area would say. He is expressing the number of possible configurations of 1,000 qubits but that is only something you care about if you are simulating a quantum computer with a classical one. The whole point of quantum computers is that you don't have to do that.
Also a simple counterexample to this sentiment is given later on, when mentioning that Google already has a 72-qubit computer. Just storing the states of a 72-qubit machine would be substantially more than the entire capacity of the internet, implying that since we somehow did it then enumerating all the states is not necessary.
If you are only hiring whoever is best for the job then you are probably hiring a lot of foreign workers that will do it for way less money. Should the government allow that to happen or do you believe in hiring laws when they protect you?
Also, if you are running your company with only the end goal in mind then you are probably doing something illegal. Laws exist to protect the interests of society, not the interests of individual companies or people.
Not sure where you get the 10 number from. The largest US employer, the federal government, gives 13 days for 3 years or less of employment, 20 days after that and 26 days at 15 years.
But they are not paid during that time, it is unpaid vacation vs paid vacation that most people get.
Except that professional workers get 20-30 days of paid vacation time while teachers get none.
Also, if you work an engineering job you likely get at least 4 weeks paid vacation, possibly 6 or 8 weeks. Teachers can't take time off in the middle of the year, the summer break is their equivalent of vacation time.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that teachers have 3 months off in the summer. Most places go well into June (here the last day this year was the 19th) and teachers have to be back in the middle of August.
IANAL, but I am pretty sure that is not right. They are protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which allows websites to censor or filter their content and still be protected.
They are not common carriers. They are protected by section 230 of the CDA, a totally different thing that allows them to do any censoring or filtering that they want and still be protected.
No, it is a problem with mixed-messages which can have unencrypted HTML next to encrypted text. You can trick the client into decrypting a message you send to them and giving it back to you.
Nope, the problem is that an adversary can send you a carefully crafted email, which inside of it has an old encrypted email that they want to break into, and due to automatic decryption and rendering of HTML elements the plaintext of that encrypted email gets exfiltrated to a target server. The core issue is actually in the way MIME works with multi-part emails where you are allowed to have some unencrypted HTML and some encrypted segments together in the same email.
What are you trying to convey with this comment? I don't get how that has anything to do with what I said.
That is also not true. It is SUPER conditionally secure. That condition even has a name: the RSA assumption. I'm not sure at this point what you are even trying to argue.
No, no, no. A thousand times no. Information theoretic security means that no matter how much computational power you have you cannot break it, because you are fundamentally missing some information that is necessary to determine a unique solution. RSA is not that. No ciphers in use are that, except the OTP.
This TLS is a bad idea. Whoever thought about it assumes that there is a private key known only to the certificate authority. What if for some reason a third party finds this key or accesses it remotely? Suddenly, all communications, including the ones of the morons who came up with the idea, will be wide open to everybody.
You could say the same thing about TLS. If Verisign can make valid certificates then everybody can. Oh wait that's not how it actually works... We should stop pretending that it is a simple situation with a simple answer because it isn't. There may very well be a secure way to implement backdoors. If you are really against the idea then you should be arguing the more salient point that they shouldn't be allowed to have a backdoor because government access is inherently not desirable/constitutional/whatever.
...except that no ciphers anyone actually uses are perfectly secret anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. As soon as you decide the OTP is too difficult to use then you leave the world of provable encryption and enter reality.
Ok so you have no evidence and are just talking out of your ass, glad we settled that.
Hillary had the same exact plan.
Citation for that? She is on the record supporting net neutrality, possibly going even further than the FCC has so far.
Okay... but if you get shot do you go to the hospital and ask them to remove all foreign objects from your body or do you tell them to take out the bullet? There have been countless accusations of sexual assault by Uber drivers, not so much other types of violence.
The DAG is not asking for a universal back door, he wants something more like key escrow. Apple will keep a copy of every user's key which can be used by Apple to decrypt data if they are served with a warrant. Alternatively, they could have a separate "master key" for each device that unlocks the secure enclave and decrypts the phone. These keys could be set at manufacture and stored in an air-gapped vault or something.
There are ways to do this that don't introduce a lot of risk of accidental discovery or leaking. This is proven by the fact that Apple already has a master key that opens every iPhone, in the form of their root signing key, and it has never leaked. I am more worried about the precedent this would set. Even if you trust the US justice system (which lots of people don't), once we have this system set up in the US then China, Russian, etc. will ask for the same thing. That is not power that we want them to have. We should set an example for the world of absolutely secure devices that not the manufacturer, government, anyone can get into.
It bothers me how his argument is almost entirely a plea to emotion. It might as well be, "think about the children." Even if he is correct, that some violent criminals are getting away with crimes because we can't prosecute due to strong encryption, how many of those incidents are we willing to pay for more secure devices? It pains me to say it, but if we had to trade 10 murders for a few billion dollars of economic damage due to preventable cyber crime, I think there are very few people who would choose the second option. We know human lives have a price in this country or else we would have universal health care by now...
Another aggravating point in his speech is that he says, "we [the DoJ] are in the business of preventing crime and saving lives." That is not true. He is in the business of prosecuting crime and getting convictions. There are actually very few incentives for him to reduce crime. If removing encryption let him convict more criminals, and then had the side-effect of increasing cyber crime, leading to more criminal convictions, that is a win/win for him.
lol okay, now you are changing the definition of "exploded" to "anything that is at all tied to population increase." Literally any type of ownership of anything has exploded according to your logic. Maybe crime was reduced by the explosion of sex toy ownership? People have better things to do by themselves now.
Actually gun ownership has gone steadily down, so that's entirely wrong. But hey, don't be discouraged, maybe next time you make up a fact off the top of your head you will be accidentally right! http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%2...
Can't be because it's a common situation for men.
No because you use extremely specific language and we had this exact same exchange last time where you projected all your insecurities onto me. Seriously, talk to someone about your issues.