Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Creating Space for Informed Democracy


No Comments

Nicholas Cage replaces Tom Hiddleston in a deepfake of Thor Ragnarok. Image Credit: ABC News

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s and grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish what feels good and what’s true we slide without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

We’ve arranged a global civilisation in which the most crucial elements – transportation, communications and all other industries, agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; even the key democratic institution of voting profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

So wrote the famed scientist Carl Sagan in 1995. Almost a quarter of a century later, here we are in the fallout of his foresight. Around the world, the open information systems we rely on in democracies have been degraded by the pace of scientific and technological acceleration, challenged by globalisation and weaponised to erode the space for informed societal debate.

So, what can Australia do? If the 2016 US elections were the canary in the coalmine that revealed systemic weaknesses in democracy’s information systems, what can be done to repair and renew them?

Democracies’ information systems support spaces for informed debate and disagreement to drive decisions that positively advance democracy, from policy issues and voting in elections, to corruption investigations and the exploration of new governance concepts.

The openness of democracies’ information systems leaves them vulnerable to information attacks which can create feedback loops of self-reinforcing and damaging expectations that undermine rules, institutions and society. The primary motivation of information attacks is to exacerbate pre-existing divisions, sow mistrust and flood the space for informed debate so that it becomes a mechanism for dysfunction and damage to society. Examples of this include the Russian Internet Research Agency’s inflaming of racial tensions, to the Chinese government’s use of fake social media accounts to attack Hong Kong protesters.

As Bruce Schneier and Henry Farrell have opined, this is Democracy’s Dilemma: the open forms of input and exchange that it relies on can be weaponized to inject falsehood and misinformation that erode democratic debate.

We need to map and evaluate these new vulnerabilities to ensure democracy’s core functions are resilient in world that will only become more interconnected with the 4th industrial revolution.

Injecting falsehood and misinformation into democracy is not a new vulnerability. However, the methods used to mount attacks against open information systems has widened. The weaponisation of social media, automation, machine learning, the internet of things and soon quantum computation (which recently may have achieved supremacy) are and will continue to make attacks cheaper, easier to scale and more deniable.

When citizens make political choices in a democracy, they rely on synthesising information from different people and sources to come a decision. Online, that information does not always flow freely and cannot be counted on to be authentic.

If the space for informed debate is compromised or undermined by attack, whether it be a parliament, newspaper, departmental inquiry, court of law or public submissions process, three things occur:

The first is the destabilisation of common political grounds for disagreement. If climate change isn’t real, smoking doesn’t cause cancer and vaccines do not ensure children survive preventable illnesses, factually informed premises for debate are lost. This inhibits the ability to solve these environmental and public health challenges, by inducing false definitional doubt and semantic paralysis.

The second is information attacks which rely on manipulation, exaggeration and disinformation require a more nuanced response, different from warfare’s blunt concepts of deterrence and defense and counter-attack. The resilience and quick restoration of the space for informed debate is far more important. It lessens the damage to other societal decisions affected by the disruption and re-establishes the integrity of flows from which to gather information for a response. This does not rule out counter-attack as an option but in an age when no commonly agreed form of cyber-deterrence exists, the creativity democratic debate allows to find a long-term solution which neutralises attackers should remain paramount.

The third is more subtle. It may be that the structure of the network itself can skew decision-making, corrupting the process leading to a decision. As a recent study from researchers at MIT, University of Pennsylvania and the University of Houston revealed, social media networks can skew bias in collective decision-making by margins of greater than 20 percent. The team conducted 100 online experiments with more than 2,520 human subjects and modelled real world gerrymandering on platforms such as Twitter to test the effects of information gerrymandering. When two parties are of equal sizes and each player has the same amount of influence in the network, a small number of “zealots” in the network can utilise their influence to disproportionately sway collective decision making. The researchers found that social media platforms are particularly vulnerable, because they allow users to block dissenting voices and create filter bubbles, while providing adversarial actors with the anonymity to exploit people through precision tailored messages based on their profiles. This demonstrates that new online platforms may not be suitable for the high-quality informed debate democracy requires.

In addition to these issues there are aspects of this problem which complicate the response.

It is necessary to acknowledge that internal threats are just as dangerous as external ones. In the 2019 Indian general election, the majority of disinformation that invaded public media streams was generated by cyber armies of volunteers supporting the major parties, including the victors, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). These armies spread false stories through popular Indian media such as Whatsapp. In one instance, the “Telangana manifesto” which falsely purported to be a document demanding a Muslim only Congress  was spread as a strategy to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim tensions benefitting the BJP’s Hindu nationalist platform. This reveals how internal checks and balances are just as important as preventing external threats to restrain political parties from engaging in information attacks which undermine their own democracy for political gain.

The second aspect is the complexity of the optimisation problem faced by global social media platforms. When building a piece of hardware like a television, it is possible to design them to each country or region’s safety standards, like the use of different power plugs.

Alex Stamos Tradeoffs

Image credit: Alex Stamos

When designing a global social media platform however, the trade-offs between options become nonlinear and unpredictable at scale. The diagram above shows the tradeoffs of democratic values vs. economic drivers, which social media platforms decide for hundreds of democratic and non-democratic jurisdictions everyday. These decisions currently exist beyond democracies’ capacity and power to decide. However they are not immune to public outcry, as seen after the recent mass shootings in New Zealand which forced Facebook to change its livestreaming rules.

In a world where information attacks are cheap and virality trumps veracity what potential solutions to improve democracy’s resilience can Australia consider?

Including information attacks that compromise democracy in Australia’s cybersecurity policy and legal frameworks is a necessity. Government guidance on measures to prevent, identify, expose and mitigate information attacks requires investment, as does updatable education programs for government and citizens on how to spot and expose information attacks to enhance societal resilience. This is a basic function of maintaining trust in information.

Delineating responsibility is also key. In the last Federal election, the Australian Electoral Commission was tasked with identifying disinformation in the media, despite not being equipped with the capability, budget or enforcement powers to police and investigate all media and social media platforms. Breaches identified came under breaches of electoral advertising and punishments for malicious actors were negligible. Establishing and equipping a specialist independent law enforcement team to intervene and use digital forensics to trace and arrest the offender could raise the cost of undermining democracy significantly. However, defining the boundaries of what constitutes new offences while balancing freedom of speech would require considerable thought and technical understanding by the legal community.

We must also invest in thinking about the policy implications of new technology issues for democracy. From combatting synthetic media such as voice cloning and human image synthesis (so called deepfakes) which can be used to sow mistrust in information attacks, to the conceptual tradeoffs and power imbalances between large global tech companies and democracies; the Australian government needs an independent multidisciplinary unit that can consider the operational and strategic implications of these issues. The United States once had an Office of Technology Assessment which assessed technological advances and translated their implications for policymakers. A similar model which considers all of society effects could be useful.

In order to face significant societal headwinds such as climate change, geopolitical competition and economic reform, Australia needs spaces where its citizens can safely disagree, test solutions and evolve policy through informed, authentic fact-based communication. Acknowledging the limits of online spaces, testing new ones and protecting information flows from attacks designed to undermine democracy will be crucial to the country’s success.

Uncategorized

Andrew Yang 2020: Growing American Faith in Techno-Realism


No Comments

Feature image via The Verge

Gabriella Skoff

The U.S. 2020 Democratic Primary is well underway, exhibiting the greatest diversity and highest number of Democratic candidates in U.S. history. From career politicians to a self-help guru to a former tech executive and everything in between—this extraordinary breadth makes for an interesting array of policy positions, on topics both expected and fringe. While technological innovation, economic growth and security have all become inextricably linked to American politics in general, the Democratic Party in particular has worked to frame itself as the harbinger of technological innovation since at least the Kennedy years. This year, Democrats and Republicans have moved closer together on technology as regulating Big Tech has become a salient challenge in government. Many Democrats in this year’s Primary are also heralding the manufacture and export of green technology as part of their solution to climate change and domestic unemployment. But one candidate in America’s 2020 Democratic line-up is talking about innovation and technology in a very serious way: Andrew Yang.

Andrew Yang is a former tech entrepreneur most well-known as a champion for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) through his flagship proposal, the Freedom Dividend. He frames his argument for the implementation of a UBI with the encroaching threat of mass job loss, as automation continues to permeate high-employment sectors like retail and the foodservice industry. With close to no political experience on his resume, nearly all of Yang’s policies rely on his knack for Silicon Valley hype and focus on the promises and threats of technology. His “human-centred capitalism” platform boasts a number of compelling and futurist tech-forward solutions, including what he refers to as the “new currency” called Digital Social Credit, which would see the creation of positive social value transformed into financial capital for the individual. Though many of Yang’s ideas may sound like sci-fi realities, he seems to view technology more reasonably as a useful tool to be harnessed in America’s path forward, making his message fall short of techno-utopianism and settle more comfortably into techno-realism.

Unsurprisingly, Yang is the only Democratic candidate to make specific mention of a quantum policy, which centres around two neat “steps”, according to Yang’s 2020 candidacy website:

First, and immediately, we need to invest in and develop new encryption standards and systems, and immediately shift to using these quantum computing-resistant standards to protect our most sensitive data. This won’t be easy or cheap, but it is necessary. Second, we must heavily invest in quantum computing technology so that we develop our own systems ahead of our geopolitical rivals.

While Yang’s quantum policy has been criticized by some for being simplistic or simply an activation of a buzzword frenzy, he remains the only candidate to have one. His policy is palatably outlined as a two-step program on his website but importantly seems to suggest Yang’s commitment to government investment in quantum technologies in order to increase both defensive and offensive U.S. quantum capacities. This stance clearly signifies Yang’s opinion that having an advantage over the rest of the world in quantum technology is a strategy that will be integral to the maintenance of American hegemony. Further, his position on foreign policy, which he characterizes as one of “restraint and judgement”, is well-suited to a quantum-enhanced security capacity that, in a modern show of military might, could demonstrate U.S. technological superiority to attack and defend without putting boots on the ground.

In these still early days of the race for Democratic candidacy, Yang’s and most other’s policies lack the proper framing and focus that will be required to get the public onside. While Yang may be wearing rose-coloured glasses when he emphasizes the power of technology to solve social ills, this angle has made him stand out from an array of incredibly diverse Democratic candidates. His current popularity ratings place him in the top ten candidates, above even well-known career politicians like Cory Booker, who have had much louder voices thus far in the Democratic debates. It is clear that there is something about Yang’s message that resonates with Americans. Though his press-time has been minimal, he has achieved some obvious success in delivering his message about the promises and perils of emerging technologies and how to harness and minimize these.

It is unlikely that Yang’s tech-forward platform will be enough to win him the nomination but the fact that it has already taken him this far should tell us something. Like most populations throughout history, Americans are concerned about the influence and the impact that emerging technologies are having on their daily lives and will continue to have on their futures. Americans seem to be interested in Yang because they want someone at the helm who has the prescience to control and channel these technologies in their best interest. At least in the U.S., however, running on a political platform focused almost exclusively on emerging technologies poses two major challenges: framing and a far-reaching, futurist vision.

First, a political message framed by tech-forward policy needs to be delivered in an accessible and pressing way. Yang’s framing of job loss due to automation is, in fact, an example of how this can be done effectively. Unemployment is a very real issue to both Democrats and Republicans and Yang’s message activates and engages both of these parties while framing the issue in terms of emerging technology. Second, in order to harness the power of tomorrow’s technology (quantum computing, for example), one needs to have sights set on the future. And not just the near future, but a future that is well beyond the purview of one presidential term of four years, or even two of eight years. This requires a bold vision that can border on futurist and risks the argument of the unknown. How can emerging technologies be channelled/regulated if we don’t even really know what they will do? The reality is that most politicians speaking about technology are either unable to grasp and communicate the topic of emerging technologies or not looking far enough into the future to really be able to create proactive policy in this area.

It is perhaps the most formidable challenge in politics, getting the general population to care about far-sighted goals, and one that has rarely been achieved outside of the force of dictatorships, whether benevolent or not. Generally, most communities (bar Silicon Valley) are not going to be receptive to the message of a platform built solely around emerging technology. In contrast, most people are concerned with matters they can relate to and issues that seem far more pressing, such as employment, infrastructure or education. Technology, of course, is increasingly an imposing factor in the conversation on these and most other topics of political debate, but it is often an intangible factor that requires a certain amount of faith. Like Church and State, Technology has become inextricably and implicitly intertwined with politics. Some, like Yang, speak about it with as much fervour and conviction. A candidate with a strong ethos of technological innovation and regulation certainly has the best chance of creating a government centred on these values. This begs the questions—is mixing technology and politics a good thing? Or, perhaps a more realistic question, like the relationship between Church and State, is it even avoidable?

Uncategorized

Could Quantum Computing Help Curb AI’s Carbon Footprint?


No Comments

Feature image via MIT Technology Review.

Gabriella Skoff

For the first time, the environmental impact of training AI in natural language processing (NLP) has been quantified, and the results are jarring. The lifecycle of training an NLP deep learning algorithm has been calculated in a new paper to produce the equivalent of 626,000 pounds of carbon dioxide—nearly five times as much as the lifetime emissions of the average American car, including the manufacturing process. The paper brings new life to a parallel aptly drawn by Karen Ho in her article on the research for the MIT Technology Review: The comparison of data to oil now extends beyond its value in today’s society to also encompass the massive costs it weighs on the natural environment as an industry practice. The team of researchers found that the highest scoring deep learning models for NLP tasks were the most “computationally-hungry”; far more energy is demanded to train them due to their voracious appetite for data, the essential resource needed to create better AI. Data crunching is a space in which quantum computing is expected to lend a critical advantage to deep learning. Could it also help to curb AI’s carbon footprint?

The environmental impact of data is not often discussed, due in part to its lack of visibility. Fossil fuel plants can dominate the skyline, the plumes of smoke billowing above them have come to symbolise a problematic issue for many. Documentaries have taught many of us that even cows have a surprisingly large impact on climate change due to their production of methane gas. Data centres, however, are far less ubiquitous polluters, though their impact is substantial. The global ICT system is estimated to require about 1,500 terawatt-hours of power per year. To put that into context, that’s about 10% of the world’s total electricity generation. Given that the majority of the world’s energy is still produced by fossil fuels, the biggest contributor to climate change, this represents a serious challenge that few seem to be talking about.

As computers become more powerful, their power-usage too increases. Supercomputers are known to be incredibly gluttonous when it comes to energy consumption. In 2013, China’s Tianhe-2, a supercomputer with a generating capacity of 33.9 petaflops, was one of the most energy-intensive computers in the world, using 17.8 megawatts of power. Tianhe-2’s electricity consumption is about the same amount of energy required to power an entire town of around 36,000 people. While supercomputers today are used for anything from climate modelling to designing new nuclear weapons, many of the next generation of supercomputers are being tailor-made to train AI.

The U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) Summit supercomputer is the first supercomputer to be specifically built for AI applications. Summit is capable at peak performance of 200 petaflops, establishing the U.S.’s ascent to top-player in the supercomputing world, a place only recently taken from China. The U.S. aims to reach the next milestone, building a supercomputer capable of an exaflop (a billion billion calculations per second) by 2023. The numbers speak for themselves. A future reliance on these supercomputers to train AI will result in exponentially greater energy usage, by a factor that in today’s stubbornly reliant fossil fuel society would have a severely negative impact on climate change. While there are some looking toward other power alternatives for training AI, perhaps quantum computers, which require far less power than supercomputers, could support a more energy-efficient transition for AI training.

Currently, quantum computers still use more power than classical computers because of their extreme cooling requirements. Most quantum computers use cryogenic refrigerators to operate, which are immensely energy-inefficient. As such, the vast majority of a quantum computer’s energy usage is pulled directly to the cooling infrastructure required in order to operate it. However, the advantage of this refrigeration technique is critical in quantum computing: Operating at temperatures near absolute zero enables quantum processing to be superconducting. This allows them to process information using almost no power and generating almost no heat, resulting in an energy requirement of only a fraction of that of a classical computer. According to the ONLR, “quantum computers could reduce energy usage by more than 20 orders of magnitude to conventional [super]computers”.

Quantum is expected to lend an essential boost to AI and could be used for more effective training in deep learning tasks such as NLP in the future. While the operating costs on the environment of quantum computers may be high due to their cooling requirements, novel cooling techniques are being explored, which could one-day present potential solutions for quantum’s power problem. As the AI industry continues to grow exponentially, it is imperative that its environmental impact be considered in order to direct a more responsible development of the sector. Even with the high level of operational energy usage factored in, quantum computers present a distinct energy efficient advantage over supercomputers and could be used to help curb the carbon footprint of training tomorrow’s AI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized

The Politics of Electoral Security


No Comments

Children hack voting machines in the DEF CON voting village. Image via PBS

Dr Aim Sinpeng

“You see I am changing who the winner is in this election” an 8-year-old boy tells me while he is typing away in what looks like some alien language. Then I see the screen. Bob da Builder has suddenly won the Florida state election.

My jaw dropped. This is scary. The boy is only a few years older than my son and he can hack into a US election website to change the winner and the results. Things got scarier as I learned that some of the vulnerabilities in today’s voting machines were identified over a decade ago and are still left unchanged.

“It’s really easy [to hack the election]. I bet the Russians could do it in their sleep… It’s not that secure. I think America should work on its computer security,” says another 11-year-old girl who hacked into the mock voting website in 10 minutes.

The organizers of DefCon’s Voting Machine Village felt terrified but unsurprised by how insecure America’s election infrastructure is.

Some of the vulnerabilities found by participants of the Voting Village were embarrassingly basic. As reported by the Wire, one machine had a root password of “password” and the admin password as “pasta.”

Praise and criticism swirled around the hacking of voting machines at DefCon. Supporters appreciated the lengths to which organizers had gone to expose computer vulnerabilities at the heart of America’s democracy – the voting machines. More than a hundred election officials have attended DefCon to learn, but others have condemned the white-hat hacking. They claim the environment is nothing like the real one on election day. To make matters worse, officials worry that DefCon’s hacking will discourage voters from showing up at the polls.

It’s undeniable however that the actions of DefCon’s Voting Machine Village have had a real impact on people with the power to bring about change. For a time, there was bipartisan support to fix the broken election system. The Secure Election Act was introduced in 2017, requiring election officials to have back-up ballot papers and to conduct a post-election audit. The new bill seemed reasonable, at first, to both Republican and Democrat senators. However it has now been put on ice due to fierce opposition from election officials who bitterly complained about the lack of the funds that would be required to carry out this new mandate. Worse, some early advocates of the election security bill have now backed up – believing the bill will not go far enough in improving the security and integrity of America’s elections. In essence, it’s now dead in the water.

The American public is concerned about the security of their elections. A recent poll by the Pew Research Centre showed that fewer than 50% of Americans feel confident in their election security. Nearly 70% of Americans think it’s likely the Russians and other foreign governments will try to interfere in the mid term elections happening next week.

So there seems to be public support but no political will to change when it comes to the security of American elections. But as the organizers of the Voting Village at DefCon emphasize: money talks. Resources need to be spent to improve electoral security otherwise the Secure Election Act, if given another life, would be an unfunded mandate.

Uncategorized

Quantum War: Recent lectures by Project Q’s James Der Derian


No Comments

SDU presoThis past week, James Der Derian, Director of the Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) and Project Q, gave a series of presentations at the Danish War Museum, Copenhagen University (KU) and the Swedish Defence University (SDU).

In Copenhagen, Der Derian presented alongside four other international experts at the first event of a year-long series, Futures of War, hosted by the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) and supported by the Carlsberg Foundation and the Velux Foundation. Speaking in the historic Danish War Museum, formerly the national arsenal of Denmark, Der Derian reflected on the emergence of ‘quantum wars’, in which diffused post-Einsteinian states of violence co-exist with Newtonian state-on-state classical wars.

Der Derian’s presentation investigated quantum wars in metaphorical and potential as well as actual and operational contexts, in which quantum computing, communications, control and AI eventually converge on the battlefield of tomorrow.

Starting with Clausewitz’ classical definitions of war – as “a duel on a larger scale”, “a forceful act to compel others to do our will”, and “a continuation of politics by other means” – Der Derian suggested that future quantum wars are already showing their face: “What if the essence of war, diffused and networked by ubiquitous realtime media, now lies firmly in an electro-magnetic, spectral phenomenology”?

Der Derian’s presentation linked the power of local and mass-global media to the emergence of quantum effects. He posited a new networked dynamic in which quantum technologies will have the capacity to oversee, foresee and if necessary pre-empt any potential threat in order to dominate a hybrid media and battle-space. Global supremacy, albeit of a temporary nature, might result from asymmetries in the development of quantum technologies. As such, quantum war takes on an “amorphous, spectral and highly volatile quality”, writes Der Derian, in which war that is “no longer delimited by national borders or justified by imminent threats.”

Noting the power of “networked modes of observation…to actually ‘produce’ new global conflicts”, Der Derian cautions that our own attempt to understand and anticipate wars through scenarios, simulations and exercises directly impact and even help to create the futures we predict.

Within this context, the phenomenon Der Derian refers to as quantum war “is defined by acts of observing highly affective images that enable as well as delimit new conditions of violence”; this, he argues, “becomes the continuation of politics by means of a networked global media”. As such, while classical war seems to be on the decline and quantum war on the rise, both forms exist in a kind of superpositional state. War is morphing, diffusing, and quantizing through its networked planning, execution and representation.  Violence produced through this mode of war will continue to become increasingly entangled in a variety of platforms and screens at the hands of individuals and groups rather than states.

Given Der Derian’s interpretation, it is clear that our readiness for the future of war will necessitate a deeper understanding of the quantum potential. Ultimately, quantum technology will dually disrupt and interact with the mechanisms of war today to affect quantum wars tomorrow. While the face of war is shifting, Der Derian predicts that the global media will continue as a constant force in warfare. This he argues, will act as a vehicle to carry quantum war into our future.

james in war museumJames Der Derian at the Danish War Museum, Copenhagen


Der Derian gave two other presentations while in Denmark:  the first, a workshop on SDU’s new research project, “The Aesthetics of Late Modern War”;  and the second, a seminar, “Visual Diplomacy:  Then and Now”, for KU’s ERC-funded project, Diploface, which explores the relationship between diplomacy, images and digital disinformation.

From Copenhagen Der Derian travelled to Stockholm, to present a research seminar at the Swedish Defence University on “International Security: The Case for a Quantum Approach”.  He also screened a short film from his Carnegie research project, “Project Q: The Question of Quantum’.

 

 

 

Uncategorized

In memory of Paul Virilio (1932-2018): Post-Einsteinian analyst of war and peace


No Comments

 

James Der Derian

‘Is the author dead?’  To this day I am not sure why I chose this as my first question to ask of Paul Virilio.  Back in 1995 I persuaded Wired Magazine to front me funds to interview Paul Virilio in Paris.  The interview took place in what was clearly his booth at La Coupole, the art deco restaurant at the intersection of Montparnasse and Raspail where Rodin’s corpuscular sculpture of Balzac served as good company for our three-hour, four-course, two-bottle, five-question lunch.

I only managed to get in five questions because Virilio responded to each one with sentences full of concatenated clauses; paragraphs that unfolded like Eisenstein montages; and verbal essays that could not possibly be reduced to the contracted thousand-word limit.  From one course to the next he worked his best hits: the ascendance of pace over space; the logistics of perception; the aesthetics of disappearance; the technological colonization of the body; and the importance of post-Einsteinian science for the social critic; stuff then that seemed outlandish, and now all too normal.  Between bites he grilled me on the Gulf War, electoral data polling and the decline of democracy in America.

I think it was over dessert that we plunged into his idée fixe of the accident, as both disaster and diagnostic of the human condition.  I told him how an accident had first introduced me to his work, when, working as a photographer’s assistant in Paris I had ran into a friend from Montreal at the Montparnasse post office, who insisted that I go see a great photography exhibition at the Museum of Decorative Arts – Virilio’s Bunker Archeology.  As it turns out one accident followed on another and that same year, 1976, we both were beaten up during a manifs by a group of right-wing extremists.  His arm, my nose had been broken.  In that comparison of scars at La Coupole, lifting shirt sleeves and tilting heads, I am reminded, after all our talk of war machines, prosthetic humans, and virtual technologies, that bones break, the flesh weakens but the author lives on.

 

Uncategorized

The Security Threats of Quantum Computing.


No Comments

While much of the talk about the post-quantum future concerns artificial intelligence, threats posed by quantum to encryption and data security have slid under the radar. As we and others have written about before, the dramatically increased computing power provided by qubits not only facilitates more efficient problem solving, but also impressively improves an attackers chances of breaching encrypted systems; providing what this Washington Post article calls a “skeleton key”, and render the current standard of the RSA encryption algorithm practically useless against a quantum-equipped attacker. This means that current security methods will need to be upgraded almost simultaneously with the first quantum computer coming online. Starting to implement quantum-proof systems is essential for the security of all our data to be maintained, and highlights the importance that both governments and private enterprise are placing on their research projects.

The issue of about quantum and encryption will be the subject of the Q Public Forum at 6pm, February 15 2018 at the General Lecture Theatre, University of Sydney, which kicks off the the fourth annual Q Symposium, ‘QC3I’:  Quantum Computing, Communication, Control and Intelligence.

Image licences under Creative Commons – https://pixabay.com/en/computer-encrypt-encryption-1294045

Uncategorized

Microsoft intensifying its presence in the higher education research field


No Comments

Last July, Microsoft and The University of Sydney announced a continuous partnership with the University’s Nanoscience Laboratory to develop quantum technology based computers. It is now confirmed that the IT giant has also established a Quantum Centre at The Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. This seems to be following a trend of the implementation of research labs between the corporate world and institutions of higher education for which quantum physics and technology research has been a large recipient. Microsoft’s other experimental research sites are at Purdue University, and Delft University of Technology. There are only four labs of this kind in the world.

CharlesMarcus

Professor Charles Marcus, head of The Niels Bohr Institute’s Centre for Quantum Devices (Qdev)
Project Q, Q3, Uncategorized

Q3 Provides Chance to Reflect on Project Q’s Progress


No Comments

While progress towards a meaningful quantum computer has yet to cascade into Moore’s law territory, this year’s Q Symposium—the third such event hosted by the University of Sydney’s Centre for International Security Studies and generously supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York—gave the impression that significant steps have been taken over the past two years.

By necessity, much of the writing and research of Q1 tended to treat the imminence of quantum technology speculatively. Post-Snowden secrecy combined with the oft-grandiose claims of its potential power made by those in its pursuit led many —myself included—to feel that quantum computing could be a paradigm shift for security on par with nuclear weapons. While this may ultimately prove the case, this year’s conference seemed very consciously engaged with the current reality of quantum technologies and theories, grounding its proceedings in a tone more grounded in the current quantum state of affairs.

This move could not come at a better time. With Project Q and similar efforts (i.e. Alexander Wendt’s publication of Quantum Mind and Social Science) beginning to present the ideas of a quantum social science to the broader community of security scholarship at ISA, the research and thinking around Q must strive to demonstrate the rigor and conceptual clarity necessary to allay competing criticisms of science envy and charlatanism.

(more…)