I just asked the question because I wonder if getting more responsive/agile to security protocol updates should become more of a norm. Why not start as an example of that here if it doesn't take much cost/time/effort? For whatever reason it doesn't seem like just security theater. NIST, Google, Apple, and others seem to be taking this admittedly unknown threat seriously. It's good to balance skepticism with curiosity here I think (the podcast episode below agrees). The certainty of this happening anytime soon is publicly unknown of course, but if in the rare chance it happens, even within a decade or two, the consequences could be serious. Apparently it was Richard Feynman, perhaps amongst others who raised the question regarding quantum computers according to this interesting Google podcast. During the podcast a host reportedly with an apparent PhD in Quantum Mechanics started to take it more seriously.. Thank you for your thoughtful response!
https://cloud.withgoogle.com/cloudsecurity/podcast/ep164-qua...
Practical QC is like nuclear fusion. People have been saying we're only a couple decades away for decades. And yes, we have made a lot of progress, but no one really knows for sure how far off we are. There might be a huge breakthrough within a couple years, or progress might stall for decades.
I think that it is absolutely worth researching post quantum cryptography, and if you are a high value target, maybe even using it. But it probably isn't necessary to use it everywhere yet.
During a Google podcast below[1] a host (reportedly with a PhD in Quantum Mechanics) expressed a similar opinion as you at first, then started to take the threat more seriously as he heard from an experienced Google colleague.. This was in 2024 before the Google Willow announcement[2]. Thank you for your thoughtful response!
>Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your disposal.
LLMs hallucinate/confabulate. I use Wikipedia to check source info and to find additional information. Of course there are more reliable sources than Wikipedia, but it's useful, still.
This is a trend I hate with the reporting on any controversy. The "respectable" outlets refuse to publish what someone has said which is causing the controversy (and not because it would open them to legal risk, to be clear). It would be like if reporting on other crimes just said someone had committed "a crime", and refused to give any detail. Yes, news articles can have upsetting content, because real life is upsetting, and they have a duty to report it
Perhaps you are making a joke that flew over my head, but in case you are new here, that not the way that this place works. You are not going to get banned for repeating the jokes that got someone fired, especially just after they won a court case saying they were actually funny. Your comment may well get flagged, because flagging is done by users, some of whom will flag just about anything they disagree with. But bans are done by Dan, and he's a good moderator who doesn't ban people for silly reasons like this. Have some faith.
Sad to see that Microsoft needed outside feedback instead of figuring out the outcome on their own before they shipped. Am I to seriously believe no decision-maker saw this coming? I think they threw it out there to see if they could get away with it, and if not, well mea culpa all around. It's either that, or some program managers over there are awfully naive.
>The system uses cameras, sensors, and software tools to determine, for example, “how much a participant contributes to a meeting vs performing other tasks (e.g., texting, checking email, browsing the Internet).”
It implies your company is recording what's going on your computer and on your phone, too, not just from body language and facial expressions!
For those interested in more background on NOAA and making money from it, I highly recommend reading The Fifth Risk[0] by Moneyball author, Michael Lewis[1]. It details how a couple private companies make a lot of money using NOAA data in interesting ways (e.g.: crop insurance (now acquired by Monsanto)). Another of those companies is AccuWeather whose CEO was appointed to head NOAA by Trump[2].
P.S.: Anyone notice that monitoring "Climate" was absent in the government announcement?
FTA: >"In addition to giving Russia free rein to build and deploy an unlimited number of intermediate-range missiles that could potentially be fitted with nuclear weapons,
withdrawing from the treaty would allow Putin to deflect responsibility and blame the US for both the treaty's collapse and any ensuing arms race."
