Brad Smith has been on a roll these past few weeks. First his support of Apple, now this.
Thank you.
I’m glad that at least one industry is doing something about this Big Brother thing that Obama is so deep into.
OK, I don’t know if spying floats Obama’s boat, but he sure doesn’t seem to be doing anything positive about our personal privacy.
I wonder if this will include the En Es Ay
Can’t quantum encryption do this automatically? I am a quantum computing noob, but can’t somebody flipping a bit elsewhere to decrypt your post flip another corresponding bit that you can see?
I’d like to know.
If you’re sugesting to transfer information through quantum entanglement, then no, since that would violate the laws limiting the speed of light. But perhaps some kind of tamper evidence scheme could use it locally.
Isn’t the speed of light a completely localized limitation? Would this still apply to a state with nonlocal quantum variables? If the entanglement is nonlocal, then it seems that if it appeared in two places “simultaneously”, this could be treated as implicit and localizing without actually “travelling” anywhere.
Either way, if it took me a few seconds or minutes to get the alert would not be a dealbreaker, since it would be more useful than idly speculating.
The distance between entangled particles is irrelevant. The limit to conveying information across distances comes from the fact that you actually have to measure the variable to set it, it being indeterminate before measurement (which might work as tamper evidence with nonlocal particles). I’m pretty sure somehow forcibly setting the variable (flipping the bit) would break the entanglement.
But I think the original suggestion was that a quantum system might have the inherent property of (a certain bit) being readable from a distance without the operator (or intruder) being able to interfere. Current (commercial) quantum cryptography schemes are for sending encrypted packets through conventional means, having the feature that upon reception possible interception is evident. But that is from memory, so please correct if I’m wrong.
Clarification: So if the integrity of either endpoint is broken (like the orders that Microsoft is fighting here), then quantum cryptography can’t (currently) help.
That’s true enough, as long as you consider “the universe” to be “local”
Well, I guess this isn’t surprising: Microsoft really needed to do something to maintain their relevancy and even stay afloat after all their OS upgrade shenanigans and that disastrous purchase of minecraft, and of course carrying the slowly sinking ship that is the xbox.
At least it’s good for…(insert windows upgrade interruption joke here)…society.
Obama seems to be a likeable guy, but he seems to be a very weak leader who allows agencies to operate without oversight and allows lobbyists to make foreign policy.
I just don’t think he is able to control his branch of government.
I think there might be something else going on here. Not really based on anything in particular, but i know that MS has been fairly enthusiastic over weakening their encryption for snooping for a long time now (they bought Skype way back and weakened it’s encryption protocol). And Gates has gone on record saying that he’s all for surveillance, because America. I do believe it might be a veiled attempt to compete with customer’s good graces as far as privacy goes, but i doubt MS is interested in strengthening their user’s privacy.
It isn’t often that I can say:
- Microsoft is doing the right thing.
Bravo Microsoft!!!
I’m assuming this doesn’t have anything to do with Exchange servers though, right? Even if the server is hosted by MS, which I assume is not usually the case, that’d be a different thing to asking for access to Hotmail accounts where MS is the actual ISP.
(And if it is just Hotmail, it’s safe to assume that Google and others have received a vastly larger number of warrants, especially given that most criminals are under 60)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
