3 ms·

QC is already a practical computing system that is solving “practically unsolvable” problems. It’s just not highly publicized because much of the work is releva

by K0balt 4y ago

QC is already a practical computing system that is solving “practically unsolvable” problems. It’s just not highly publicized because much of the work is relevant to state security. The field is a bit farther along than one would infer from contemporary information and publicly published papers. If you think about it even a little, it is almost axiomatic to the intelligence/security world that a machine that could break much known encryption in human relevant timeframes would obviously be being developed under a shroud of secrecy at the bleeding edge. It is far too important to be able to manage the implications of any significant breakthroughs potentially years before public release. QC is not magic and there are effective counter strategies. But standards take time to implement and the well being of society demands a that the impacts of QC be mitigated through control of the tech and the information around it. Fortunately, the tech required so far keeps access to the computing resource somewhat restricted, and organizations that cooperate with governments control it so far. For most people, the important thing to keep in mind is that everything now shielded by many forms of encryption will be trivially readable in the foreseeable future. Truly sensitive data stored long term should be moved to Q hard algorithms and old versions destroyed as possible (easier said than done in many cases)

vba616 4y ago
>it is almost axiomatic to the intelligence/security world that a machine that could break much known encryption in human relevant timeframes would obviously be being developed under a shroud of secrecy at the bleeding edge I'm unconvinced of this. Any government agency (say the NSA) is a tiny subset of the whole world, and can't be expected to outdo it. Especially if they have some disadvantages like, say, not being able to hire people who've ever smoked pot. >It is far too important to be able to manage the implications of any significant breakthroughs But that's what keeping breakthrough tech secret would do - prevent managing the implications. Keeping it secret means not sharing it with allies. That means if someone else discovers the same thing or steals it via espionage, now your adversary has it and your allies don't.
- K0balt 4y ago
  The NSA does it’s work through the same companies that are known leaders in the field. If you are working on something with national security implications, the NSA or its counterpart in other countries will knock on your door and put your people and your organization under the burden of secrecy and cooperation as a condition of your continuing research and in some cases existence. That is how the NSC/MIC works, it’s mostly outsourced. The government per se does very little research with some notable exceptions.

by K0balt 4y ago

vba616 4y ago

>it is almost axiomatic to the intelligence/security world that a machine that could break much known encryption in human relevant timeframes would obviously be being developed under a shroud of secrecy at the bleeding edge I'm unconvinced of this. Any government agency (say the NSA) is a tiny subset of the whole world, and can't be expected to outdo it. Especially if they have some disadvantages like, say, not being able to hire people who've ever smoked pot. >It is far too important to be able to manage the implications of any significant breakthroughs But that's what keeping breakthrough tech secret would do - prevent managing the implications. Keeping it secret means not sharing it with allies. That means if someone else discovers the same thing or steals it via espionage, now your adversary has it and your allies don't.

K0balt 4y ago
The NSA does it’s work through the same companies that are known leaders in the field. If you are working on something with national security implications, the NSA or its counterpart in other countries will knock on your door and put your people and your organization under the burden of secrecy and cooperation as a condition of your continuing research and in some cases existence. That is how the NSC/MIC works, it’s mostly outsourced. The government per se does very little research with some notable exceptions.