If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Humans Invent)   The future of the internet is quantum and it's going to be very fast indeed   (humansinvent.com) divider line 17
    More: Cool, renovations  
•       •       •

2519 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Feb 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



17 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-28 09:35:36 AM  
"...you could also entangle each of two remote atoms with a photon and then, based on measurements of those photons, generate entanglement between the atoms. Finally, you could use quantum teleportation protocols to transmit data from one site to the other. "


Take that causality!
 
2013-02-28 09:50:53 AM  
The discovery would allow quantum computers to exchange data at the speed of light along optical fibres.

I don't know whether to laugh or sigh.
 
2013-02-28 10:10:30 AM  
FTA: There are certain types of problems that are very hard on a classical computer that could be solved much more efficiently on a quantum computer. One famous example is factoring large numbers because the difficulty of this problem is the basis for RSA encryption (an algorithm for public-key cryptography).

So the example they use to promote the speed and ability of quantum systems is to show how much easier it will be to crack certain encryption schemes? Now there's a real selling point.

/they should have said faster porn
 
2013-02-28 10:35:13 AM  
I'm waiting for quantum cryptography to be made illegal via some false-flag operation involving the Chinese doomsday cyber-army that the news has been blathering about lately.
 
2013-02-28 10:42:07 AM  
Windows will still find a way to slow it down...
 
2013-02-28 12:36:43 PM  
Behold! The Hesinberg-Mailer Daemon! Your email is kept perpetually by the mailer, never returning or arriving at it's destination!
 
2013-02-28 12:58:18 PM  
Does subby mean fast as in the speed of light?

In other words as fast as any other digital device in the entire freaking world?

I want to know bandwidth...
 
2013-02-28 04:24:09 PM  
Every time I hear the word "quantum" in a context not being used to describe actual quantum mechanics, I want to punch someone.
 
2013-02-28 06:07:36 PM  
It could magically use tachyons to transmit data faster than light, but it still will only be as fast as Cox, ATT, Comcast, RIAA and the rest of our corporate masters allow.

/there is always more profit in scarcity
 
2013-02-28 09:09:57 PM  
Subby: The future of the internet is quantum and it's going to be very fast indeed


Well, it is, and it isn't.
At the same time.
 
2013-03-01 05:12:25 AM  

torusXL: I'm waiting for quantum cryptography to be made illegal via some false-flag operation involving the Chinese doomsday cyber-army that the news has been blathering about lately.


Why? At this point in history, in addition to being a bit iffy on the security side, it's cost-prohibitive and technically out of reach for anything but a government or very large corporate entity. Regulating or constraining it at this point would only build awareness of the sorry state of actual privacy versus technically achievable privacy, and thus demand for that privacy.

Ten years ago, I'd have been amazed to know that in 2013 we're still running on a largely plaintext internet. Fundamental protocols aren't encrypted, and even the planned "next generation" replacements don't remedy this (DNSSEC, I'm looking at you). These days, though, I'm not really surprised at all. That's... how we roll. :(

/www.silentcircle.com
 
2013-03-01 08:29:44 AM  

1. Put snakes on plane: The discovery would allow quantum computers to exchange data at the speed of light along optical fibres.

I don't know whether to laugh or sigh.


The leap here is to transmit the qubit, that is, the quantum state of the atom, intact at the speed of light. "Data" is not really the right word for TFA to have used.
 
2013-03-01 11:48:41 AM  

mrexcess: torusXL: I'm waiting for quantum cryptography to be made illegal via some false-flag operation involving the Chinese doomsday cyber-army that the news has been blathering about lately.

Why? At this point in history, in addition to being a bit iffy on the security side, it's cost-prohibitive and technically out of reach for anything but a government or very large corporate entity. Regulating or constraining it at this point would only build awareness of the sorry state of actual privacy versus technically achievable privacy, and thus demand for that privacy.

Ten years ago, I'd have been amazed to know that in 2013 we're still running on a largely plaintext internet. Fundamental protocols aren't encrypted, and even the planned "next generation" replacements don't remedy this (DNSSEC, I'm looking at you). These days, though, I'm not really surprised at all. That's... how we roll. :(

/www.silentcircle.com


I was mostly being facetious, but how would governments react to unbreakable encryption?

For one, it would be an extremely valuable military tool that the owners would want to keep exclusive for as long as possible. It would also create some pretty tough law enforcement issues. With the knee-jerk way most governments react to anything, I can't imagine anything else than making quantum cryptography illegal for citizens. But that might be tough to implement without some wonky laws, so maaaaybe some type of scare tactic would be the easiest route for some Machiavellian types to make it fully illegal.

Interesting points you bring up. I'm not sure what you mean about the demand for privacy, though. Are you saying that it would be good to have that demand or bad? And for whom is it good/bad?
 
2013-03-01 06:05:42 PM  
torusXL
I was mostly being facetious, but how would governments react to unbreakable encryption?

If history is any guide: discovering it first, suppressing it from public awareness using often dirty means, and undermining it by offering substandard alternatives, all whilst simultaneously pouring tons of resources into breaking it.

Interesting points you bring up. I'm not sure what you mean about the demand for privacy, though. Are you saying that it would be good to have that demand or bad? And for whom is it good/bad?

Depends on your perspective. If you're someone who isn't comfortable with the people around you having freedom from surveillance, it would be bad. If you're someone who believes that privacy and secure communication is an inherent and implied if not explicitly articulated foundational component of a free citizenry, then probably pretty good.
 
2013-03-01 06:36:38 PM  

mrexcess: Regulating or constraining it at this point would only build awareness of the sorry state of actual privacy versus technically achievable privacy, and thus demand for that privacy.


mrexcess: Depends on your perspective. If you're someone who isn't comfortable with the people around you having freedom from surveillance, it would be bad. If you're someone who believes that privacy and secure communication is an inherent and implied if not explicitly articulated foundational component of a free citizenry, then probably pretty good.


You implied lack of regulation and the tone seems to say that you're expecting there is purposely no regulation put on quantum cryptography so that people will remain complacent about their privacy. Is that the gist?

If so, then I'd say that's a tragic state of affairs.
 
2013-03-01 07:06:26 PM  
torusXL
You implied lack of regulation and the tone seems to say that you're expecting there is purposely no regulation put on quantum cryptography so that people will remain complacent about their privacy. Is that the gist?

Eh, not really. More than anything, there's no regulation or official hullabaloo about quantum crypto right now because implementations are outside the fiscal and technical capabilities of anyone other than governments and huge corporations. It's just not useful to the common man, at this point.

The example I drew on for my projection of some hypothetical reaction to freely available "unbreakable" crypto was actually the sordid tale of the early days of Phil Zimmerman's Pretty Good Privacy public key crypto utility. Back when it was difficult for governments to crack, Phil put up with a lot of shiat for having created it, and key escrow cryptography ala the Clipper chip (where the government would mandate that crypto implementations give them a backdoor key to decrypt citizens' "private" communications) became all the rage in the halls of power.

It is a pretty tragic state of affairs. The only reason that politicians no longer feel threatened by citizen use of public key crypto is that they can break it.
 
2013-03-01 07:18:55 PM  
mrexcess: It is a pretty tragic state of affairs. The only reason that politicians no longer feel threatened by citizen use of public key crypto is that they can break it.

Yeah...even if no backdoor is there, I bet it's not too far fetched to crack standard encryption with a supercomputing, massively parallel data facility. They've been doing it since WW2, I'm sure they've gotten pretty good at it by this point...

Someday, maybe quantum cryptography methods will figuratively be practical one-time pads.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report