Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Single-Photon LED: Key To Uncrackable Encryption?

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the morse-code-writ-small dept.

Encryption 228

nut writes: "The BBC are carrying this story of new type of LED so precise that it can emit just one photon of light each time it is switched on. It has been developed by scientists from Toshiba Research Limited and the University of Cambridge. It is described in the journal Science, although I can find no mention of it on their website. One of the applications of this is supposedly uncrackable encryption, due to the law of indeterminacy. This application is described fully in 'The Code Book', by Simon Singh, although the method was only theoretical at the time the book was first published."

cancel ×

228 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frost pist (-1, Troll)

Super Mario Troll (542762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701647)

sung to the tune of Day-O
Gay-ho,Gaaaaaaaaay-ho,
Gaylight come and j0n k4+z don' wanna go home
Gay! isa gay isa gay isa gay isa gaaaay-ho
Gaylight come and j0nk4+z don' wanna go home

Fuck all night on a drink of cum!
Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
Stuffin ass until the mornin come!
Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home

Come mr taliban, tally me young boooys
Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
Come mr taliban, tally me young boooys
Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
It's 6 foot, 7 foot 8 foot fuck! Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
1 boy, 2 boy, 3 boy fuck! Gaylight come and I wanna get laid

Gay! isa Gaaaaaay-ho!
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid
Gay! isa gay, isa gay isa gay isa gay
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid

A beautiful bunch, of ripe young ass!
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid
Highly deadly, sores in ass!
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid
It's 6 foot, 7 foot 8 foot fuck! Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
1 boy, 2 boy, 3 boy fuck! Gaylight come and I wanna get laid

Gay! isa Gaaaaaay-ho!
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid
Gay! isa gay, isa gay isa gay isa gay
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid

Come mr taliban, tally me young boooys
Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
Come mr taliban, tally me young boooys
Gaylight come and I don' wanna go home
Gaaay-ho! Gaaaaaaay-ho!!
Gaylight come and I wanna get laid

Gay! isa gay isa gay isa gay isa gay isa gaaaaaay-ho
Gaylight come and I don' wanna gooooo hoooome

Re:frost pist (-1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701663)

Now all we need of Isaac Hayes to sing this.

Re:frost pist (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701810)

I like it. It has a funky beat and I can troll to it.

Re:frost pist (-1, Troll)

Super Mario Troll (542762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701832)

High praise... I have always enjoyed The Turd Report.

Want to get to know the Super Mario Troll better? Read my bio [slashdot.org] !!

Re:frost pist (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701913)

Beetleguise, Beetleguise, Beetleguise!

First Posts (-1, Offtopic)

sneakybilly (537969) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701650)

Do people who get first posts even read the article? mmmmm I know I didn't just wanted to get in the top ten :)

Re:First Posts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701727)

Yes. But only if it doesn't make the front page.

Or they saw the article on another site and just noticed it on slashdot.

But generally, if it makes it to the front page, the first post will invariably be crap. ;)

Re:First Posts (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701741)

mmmmm I know I didn't just wanted to get in the top ten

Do the people who get first posts ever use correct grammar and punctuation? the phrase "I didn't just wanted" does not make sense. Perhaps you missed a comma?

And back to the topic on hand...

The laws of quantum mechanics dictate that it provides a way to guarantee that no-one has intercepted that key

Cool. That's half the insecurity problem solved. Or is it? In cryptography are most breaches caused by keys not being kept secure, or by algorithms being cracked?
When DES was released, didnt they say it would never be cracked? Well look what happened there [info-sec.com] . In fact, it's been done several times [google.com] now.

Never say Never.

But it may still be hackable (0, Interesting)

os2fan (254461) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701667)

Consider these issues:
  1. The line can still be hacked, because it is possible to put a TEE into the circuit, just as long as STDOUT looks like STDIN.
  2. It may be possible to hack elsewhere, al la Magic Lanten.
  3. It would be very succeptable to stray photons, including those made by quantum effects...
Or am I wrong....

Re:But it may still be hackable (2)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701687)

You forgot another tacktic: replay attacks.

Re:But it may still be hackable (2)

mbessey (304651) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701734)

Replay attacks are a protocol problem, and are best handled at that level, with timestamps, for instance.

Quantum Cryptography is all about protecting against undetected interception of your signal. If the detection problem gets solved, this could be a real revolution in the security of communication links.

-Mark

Re:But it may still be hackable (2)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701896)

Timestamps have one fundamental problem: they are predictable. It might stop a replay attack, but not cryptoanalysis.

But just a thought, if attempts are made to make the signal "undetectable", isn't that falling into the 'security through obscurity' trap?

I find the assumption of "unbreakable crypto" a bit overzealous. Every crypto scheme can be cracked, only the time you have to invest in it seems to keep growing, and things seem to get more and more complex. The reason people feel save with high grade conventional crypto (thru PKI or be it symmetrical) is that it takes a *very* long time (as in hopefully centuries) to recover the message.

AFAIK, there is only one scheme that comes close to perfect, and that's the one time pad using a (dare I say) random "key" (say, a CD-R recorded with just white noise picked up from radio traffic or stellar background noise). If the "key" is handled in a secure manner, it's virtually unbeatable. Of course there is one VERY weak factor here, and that's the human factor, but still... Oh ironic is that the one time pad system is also the most simple one :-)

RTFGoogle (1)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701985)

It's not about timestamps. It's not "security through obscurity". It's about fundamental laws of quantum physics. Try looking at these [google.com] links.

Wiretapping is not a concern... (3, Informative)

mbessey (304651) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701708)

The line can't be tapped, because if you intercept the photons, you can't re-create the signal. Read an article on Quatum Cryptography.

-Mark

Re:Wiretapping is not a concern... (1)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701732)

The only way I coudl think of off hand (and believe me, I'm no quantum mechanic) would be to do the intercepting on either end, either before the photon is sent, or after it is received. Presumably there would be circuitry somewhere that would be working with this. Unles everything transmitted in photons. (press a key, fires off a photon to keyboard, keyboard fires photons into computer, motherboard fires photons.. .etc, etc.)

Re:Wiretapping is not a concern... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701836)

Uhm, if you have access directly to the sender or the receiver, why bother with the encrypted message at all?

Re:But it may still be hackable (1)

Jon Howard (247978) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701730)

The only way to make the output look the same as the input (for a man-in-the-middle attack) would be to break the entanglement of the source photons, read the data, and entangle the output photon with the source photons. Currently there is no known or theoretical technique to accomplish this task, but I may be missing something.

Re:But it may still be hackable (1)

waitdyahoo.com (468104) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701816)

Well that is what I don't understand as I read the article, it says that intercepting the proten would cause the properties of it to change..

But they also say they have no way of reading the value. Is that because they are modifying the value of the proton when they try to read it?

Vaperware anyone?

Re:But it may still be hackable (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701847)

1. The line can still be hacked, because it is possible to put a TEE into the circuit, just as long as STDOUT looks like STDIN.

Actually, if the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct, this is not possible.

The way that this works is not intuitive at all, so don't worry if you don't understand it. Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen published a famous paper showing that quantum mechanics necessarily leads to these kind of effects.

Their goal was actually to show that quantum mechanics was unacceptable as a physical theory because they did not believe nature could possibly behave this way. But as far as we can tell, nature really does work in these mysterious ways.

no christmas lights (0)

Zep1 (112721) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701668)

That wouldn't do much for lighting your christmas tree

Second post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701669)

#eet

Glowing (1, Offtopic)

Renraku (518261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701673)

If you had an entire array of these single-photon lights, couldn't it add an eerie glow to an object? Hopefully we can nanoscale these LED's and make things glow eerily.

Re:Glowing (1)

enneff (135842) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701894)

There is absolutely no way, even if you had a MASSIVE array of them, that you could observe the light emitted by these LEDs with the naked eye. A standard LED emits many millions upon millions of photons every second, whilst these only emit a single one.

Re:Glowing (2, Informative)

QuMa (19440) | more than 12 years ago | (#2702024)

Actually, under the right circumstances the human eye can detect a single photon. However, due to the preprocessing done by the brain this signal doesn't actually reach any conscious part of your brain (for lack of better terms). But you don't need that many photon's, 10 or 20 should be perfectly detectable [iastate.edu] under the right circumstances.

LED Uses (1)

sneakybilly (537969) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701674)

So I guess these things aren't for flash lights :)

Question (0, Offtopic)

cscx (541332) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701676)

I *know* it's an LED, but the question is, can you run Linux on it?

Important information about LEDs! (-1)

The WIPO Troll (267426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701685)

By The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.12 $

Why have I been receiving emails from CmdrTaco, in which he seems to be speaking in some kind of code language?

Whenever
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda [cmdrtaco.net] gets bored (and who wouldn't, running a site like Slashdot all day), he roams through the Slashdot database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy engaging in homosexual orgies with him. How he determines this is anyone's guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, or a nick with the letter P in it, you're in trouble.
So this time, he found you. Lucky you.
CmdrTaco's code language is relatively easy to decipher. He prefers to speak in thinly-veiled sexual innuendo to evade the watchful (but relatively stupid) eye of Slashdot's parent corporation,
VA Software [yahoo.com] . CmdrTaco's "Commander" is, of course, his penis -- a small, withered little thing that lives in his pants that only comes out in the presence of other men or at the beck and call of CmdrTaco's own right hand. His "Taco bells" are the shriveled testes that droop beneath his Commander, and his "Taco sauce" is his, well, jizz. It should be more than obvious to you now what he means when he asks you to "ring his Taco bells" or "taste his gourmet Taco sauce."
Lastly, there is a practice he refers to as "Taco-snotting" and the more shocking "circle-snot."

Good Lord. What is "Taco-snotting?"

"Taco-snotting" is the term used by CmdrTaco to refer to the practice of sucking the penis of a homosexual man (or unwilling heterosexual; CmdrTaco is rumored to prefer rape), then blowing the semen out his nose onto his partner's (victim's) face and body. A long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is
left on CmdrTaco's face [yahoo.com] , dribbling out of his nose and down his cheek: hence the term, "Taco-snotting."
A "circle-snot" is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among the Slashdot crew. CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel [yahoo.com] , and Homos get together and Taco-snot each other with their gooey, sticky cum -- spooging their jizz-snot all over each other's faces and pasty, white bodies, until they're covered head to toe with each other's man juice. This can go on for hours. For the homosexual penetration that follows this lengthy foreplay, Roblowme is usually there to provide plenty of anal lubricant; he owns a limo service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease ready to go.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie will usually join in, dressed in tight leather mock-S.S. uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The whole group then proceeds to snot each other's spunk and whip each other's pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pale, white geek bodies are exhausted and soaked in stinking sweat from the hours of passionate, homosexual revelry.

Ewwwwww. So, can I stop receiving these emails?

Hopefully.
You most likely forgot to uncheck the "Willing to Taco-snot" checkbox in your account preferences. CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad, and he's probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube. There's no escaping a geek in heat, so it's probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTaco's sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to "Willing to Taco-snot." Maybe he'll ignore you. Probably not.

I can't stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge... oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot you, you will most likely end up tied up in his basement to be used as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a circle-snot).

Have you ever been Taco-Snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met CmdrTaco at an
Open Source Convention [yahoo.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake and some "gourmet Tacos," but when I got there, he jumped me and tied me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his "Commander" out of his pants, Mr. Taco made me suck the withered thing six times. He then performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm after sweaty, mind-numbing orgasm... then he snotted my own milky-white jizz back onto my face, into my mouth, then again on my exposed belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, "Open Sauce" -- man sauce) buddies over to continue the twisted snotfest. Linux Torvalds
raped my ass [yahoo.com] with his "monolithic kernel [yahoo.com] ," and Anal Cox used his "network stack" in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice in my defenseless body. Michael was there in his leather Nazi uniform, caning my ass with a bamboo pole and ranting about "all those Censorware freaks out to get him."
How did you finally escape, you ask? After about 16 hours of countless homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my restrained body, they all finally went to sleep on top of me, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, covered in bubbly, translucent jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with half a dozen fat, pasty-white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my flesh worked wonderfully as a lubricant; I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door. I'm just glad I survived the ordeal. These geeks had a lot of built-up spunk in their wads -- I could've easily been drowned!

That's horrible. Does "Taco-snotting" have anything to do with CmdrTaco's "special taco"?

No, that's a different disgusting perversion CmdrTaco indulges himself in. CmdrTaco is usually not satisfied with merely snotting your own jizz back onto your face, he most often enjoys involving his own bodily fluids in his twisted games.
WeatherTroll [slashdot.org] has spent some time trying to educate the Slashdot readership about this vile practice (emphasis added):
You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and
shits on it. He then adds lettuce, jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconscious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconscious until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force-feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim.
After the victim is unconscious, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious sexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, Taco-snotting, and getting Jon Katz involved.
Completely different, yet no less revolting. It should be clear to you now that CmdrTaco is a very, very sick individual, as are most of the Slashdot editors.

Does Jon Katz get involved in any of this? I thought he was a paedophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a homosexual paedophile. He's also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile. Jon Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesn't involve himself in circle-snots. Mr. Katz usually engages in a game called "
Katz juicy-douching [yahoo.com] " with his harem of little-boy slaves: a vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boy's urine (forced out of them with a pair of pliers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then squirting and slathering the goo all over himself, and the little boy's chained-up and naked bodies. If he's in the mood, he will sometimes skip refilling the enema bag and just squirt it from his ass [yahoo.com] onto his boys. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pliers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them for the rest of their lives.
As I already said, Mr. Katz is
also a zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys aren't enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goat's anus [yahoo.com] . He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goat's small, bean-like turds.

...Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. I'm already CmdrTaco's boi toi.

________________________________________
READER COMMENTS

  1. Fucking hilarious too bad it didnt get a 5:Funny (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.12.02 19:01 (#2644105 [slashdot.org] )

    this is good shit man

  2. Re:Taco-snotting@Home! (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Dark_Cobra87 [slashdot.org] on 2001.12.01 23:03 (#2642180 [slashdot.org] )

    Oops, forgot to check that Taco-snot option...

  3. Re:Fuck Linux! Fuck him hard! (Score:-1)
    by Fecal Troll Matter [slashdot.org] on 2001.12.01 20:55 (#2641791 [slashdot.org] )

    Mmmmmmm, Taco Sauce... [galeon.com]

    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)

  4. Look (Score:-1)
    by ArchieBunker [slashdot.org] on 2001.12.01 20:19 (#2641679 [slashdot.org] )

    I love trolling but this shit is getting old, fast. At least start mixing them up a little bit. How about the 'How OSM was Freed' series?
    http://www.naawp.org/

  5. Re:Congratulations! You have been WIPO'd!! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.12.01 8:37 (#2640602 [slashdot.org] )

    Stop posting this! I've got hangover and Taco Snotting doesn't make me feel any better.

    I'm really glad that Taco Snotting is illegal here in Europe.

  6. Re:Snot me baby, one more time! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.30 1:01 (#2634213 [slashdot.org] )

    Get a life you loser! Don't you have anything better to do than insult CmdrTaco and the gay community? We are not perverts, we are human beings just like you. So give it a rest!

  7. Re:Hello, perdida!!! Won't you snot my face tonigh (Score:-1)
    by perdida on [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.27 14:13 (#2618764 [slashdot.org] )

    Shut up you asshole.

    I am not great, I am merely adequate. I live in adequacy.

  8. Go back to Russia. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.26 22:22 (#2616035 [slashdot.org] )

    You weiner trool!

  9. Re:The Taco-Snotting FAQ Rides Again!! (Updated so (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.25 9:14 (#2609574 [slashdot.org] )

    try to find a pic of actual "taco-snotting"! fucking funny it would be! so go to gay porn sites day in and day out until you find a man giving another man a blowjob that has jizz coming out of his nose and mouth. by the way, keep up the good work

  10. Re:Snotting another first!! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.23 12:18 (#2603370 [slashdot.org] )

    WIPO, this is getting waaaay old, either drop it or revise it.... there've been no updates for days now...

    CmdrTaco

  11. Re:It's Taco SPAM!!! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.22 17:28 (#2600815 [slashdot.org] )

    A truly excellent and very humourous troll indeed!
    However...

    To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie often join in, dressed in black Gestapo uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves.

    Black GeStaPo uniforms? The GeStaPo (Geheime Staatspolizei - Secret State Police) wore civilian clothes (although there are reports on them occasionally using Allgemeine SS uniforms in occupied territories).

    I seriously doubt that perverted individuals like CmdrTaco et al would have the good taste to ever wear the outstandingly beautiful black Waffen SS uniforms! Please update the FAQ accordingly.

    • Re:It's Taco SPAM!!! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.23 4:06 (#2602610 [slashdot.org] )

      Actually, it appears you are both wrong!! Ah ha!! I think our boy WIPO was thinking of the Allgemeine SS [militariacollection.com] uniforms. Waffen SS were grey.

  12. Re:Microsoft's Taco-Snotting Connection (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.21 4:49 (#2594325 [slashdot.org] )

    oh yeah, you say you have masturbated only 2 times to this post. well, by the time it takes for me to get through reading it, i usually end up masturbated 5 to 6 times, 10 to 12 if i have the goatse.cx homepage loaded up and am looking at it side by side with the slashdot page. my keyboard, hands, mouse, monitor, the underside of my desk and around the floor under my desk are cum soaked and sticky with the man smell i know and love.

  13. Re:Microsoft's Taco-Snotting Connection (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.21 4:41 (#2594311 [slashdot.org] )

    for version 2 you should make a total re-write of the cod...errr...text and add some details about cmdrtaco and the homo-gang's happenings with their coworkers (osdn?) and all of the gay revelry they enjoy and promote. by the way, did i just see cmdrtaco on television promoting the nax hair removal system? i guess after using vaseline in and around his ass he grew quite a ponytail and it had to be removed somehow...ouch!

  14. Re:Microsoft's Taco-Snotting Connection (Score:-1, Troll)
    by TRoLLaXoR [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.21 3:59 (#2594191 [slashdot.org] )

    WIPO, do you notice how few comments you get for anything you write/post/spam nowadays?

    -Trollaxor

  15. Jon-Katz docking (Score:-1)
    by sales_worldwide [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.20 11:53 (#2588488 [slashdot.org] )

    You forgot to mention Jon Katz's "docking" games, where he places his chopper head to head with another chap, and rolls the other guys foreskin over his own circumcised end ("docking"), providing him with fantasies of actually having his own forskin ...
    "Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...

  16. Re:Snotting a first! (Score:-1)
    by Fucky the troll [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.20 11:28 (#2588446 [slashdot.org] )

    Woah! When did the WIPO troll get freed? And how the fuck did I miss it?

    Excellent FP, sir.

    This is a sig virus. Please put me in your sig

  17. Re:Snotting a first! (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.20 11:04 (#2588407 [slashdot.org] )

    omg that is crapflooding material if i ever saw it!!!!!! and u got a first post!!!! whoot to the wipo troll!!!

  18. GW, please.... (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.19 9:03 (#2583756 [slashdot.org] )

    GW...you know we love every hair on your 27 acre ass... and I, for one, would never do anything untowards your graceful demeanor. And you probably have several friends that would love to help you do the bear dance all over my face if I so much as spelled your name wrong. And you know I'd defend your Constitutional right to defame God in heaven. I'd even help fund your education, should you ever decide to take that route. Hell, I'd buy you a tall tepid bear-whiz beer if you were here with me, right now!

    But. ...if you can't find another topic, I'm gonna step over your dead mother's grave and kick your assuredly anesthetitized butt clear across the playground.

    Now go stick your shaved head back down inside the woman's toilet, and just to show there's no hard feelings, I'll jump in the tow-truck and drive right over to help you pull it right out...ok?

    thanks

  19. Re:Help me Taco-Snotters!! (Score:-1)
    by mark knopfler 69 [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.19 8:25 (#2583695 [slashdot.org] )

    I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU SIR. FOR ONE THING, THE E-MAIL FROM CMDRTACO DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH GRAMMATICAL AND SPELLING MISTAKES. Let's be realistic here, CmdrTaco usually types with one hand, and since he is shaking from jacking off his aim on the keyboard isn't too good. Those e-mails were a little too well written. Sorry boy, you'll have to do better.

  20. Re: What the hell is "taco snotting"? (Score:-1)
    by WeatherTroll [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.19 8:14 (#2583667 [slashdot.org] )

    You should update this to say VA Software instead of VA Linux.

  21. YOU ARE WINNER (Score:1)
    by smackmonkey [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.19 7:06 (#2583510 [slashdot.org] )

    Crackhead moderators: this is +5, Hilarious material.

    --
    CNN declares War on Islam!
    Left-wing America declares War on its Civil Liberties!

  22. Re:On Taco-Snotting 1.9 (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.19 5:40 (#2583336) [slashdot.org]

    This was funny the first 100 times. Now it is getting boring!

  23. Digusting and Shameful (Score:-1)
    by egg troll [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 22:27 (#2582054 [slashdot.org] )

    Having masturbated *twice* to this post, I'm still incredibly aroused! Come over for a Taco Snot. I'll be wearing my crotchless Clifford the Big Red Dog outfit!!

    For more info check out this /. article [google.com]

  24. IMPROVE THE FAQ (Score:-1, Flamebait)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.18 12:03 (#2580822 [slashdot.org] )

    add more links to goatse and to cowboineal's site to make it better. a link to rotten.com would be nice too

    • Re:IMPROVE THE FAQ (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.18 12:18 (#2580832 [slashdot.org] )

      and a link to michael's site and to jon katz's site if he has one and homo's site. i dont know what else to say. maybe a few links to phallic.org they have nice penis pictures! a link to the planet quake site or whatever. really make the reader feel this faq really answers their questions. oh yeah, and when you talk about cmdrtaco snotting you, say he brought you to "orgasm after sweaty orgasm". describe it more is all i'm saying. and use more italics and bolding! and when you talk about jon katz shitting or whatever have a link to fecal japan on rotten.com

      other wise a great job wipo troll! keep up the good work!

  25. Re:CmdrTaco's filthy secret! (Score:-1)
    by Wil Wheaton [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 6:41 (#2580438 [slashdot.org] )

    Hi. Let's be buddies.. butt buddies.
    --
    WIL WHEATON DOT NET [wilwheaton.net]

  26. WIPO speaks the truth (Score:-1)
    by dead_puppy [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 5:33 (#2580342 [slashdot.org] )

    Here is an e-mail I received a week ago:

    From: malda@slashdot.org
    To: puppy_dead@hotmail.com
    Subject: were where you last friday? :(

    I thought we where supposed to meet at Backdoor's at 8-ish, sugar-lips? You could've at least told me that you could'nt make it! I was even in my favorite pink skirt for you, honey-cup... next time, you could be more considarite and tell me you cant come... bastard.

    --
    CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org)

    You finding Ling-Ling's [babysue.com] head?

  27. Taco snotting is WRONG!!! (Score:-1)
    by Big_Ass_Spork [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 4:53 (#2580300 [slashdot.org] )

    I do it wrong

    Laying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love. My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours. My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain. She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl. She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.

    Massaging my nutsack she....

    WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!!!!

    Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass. [goatse.cx]

    "OH BIG ASS SPORK!! Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good. DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!! Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!"

    "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!"

    I DO IT WRONG!!!!

    ---
    All your Sporks are belong to Big_Ass_Spork! What you say?! All your Sporks are belo... forget it...

  28. Rob Malda Dead at age 25! (Score:-1)
    by j0nkatz [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.17 22:54 (#2579596 [slashdot.org] )

    I just heard some sad news on the radio -- famous queerbait Rob Malda was found dead in his Holland home this morning. The details were a bit hazy, but it seems that he drowned in jizz while Taco Snotting his friend Hemos. I'm sure everyone in the /. community will miss him -- even if you didn't enjoy his queer antics and boring ass website, there's no denying his contributions to the homosesual cultural development, particularly in the areas of Taco snotting. Truly an American icon.

    I wanna Open Source sex so it won't be worth a shit either.

  29. TACO-SNOTTING is really Donkey-Punching (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.15 6:38 (#2567601 [slashdot.org] )

    No no no, the correct term for that is "donkey-punch". I have eye-witnessed this amazing eye-popping event demonstrated on unsuspecting hose-monsters by my frat brothers in the past.. . :-)

  30. Re:the effect of knowlege laws... (Score:1)
    by AbsoluteRelativity [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.15 5:31 (#2567457 [slashdot.org] )

    The WIPO Troll [foundus.com]
    Slashdot and the Karma Lottery - News for uber monkeys, by uber monkeys.

  31. Re:Taco-Snotting (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.13 9:27 (#2557632 [slashdot.org] )

    Oh, man that's just sick !

  32. HOW DO I GET AN ANONYMOUS PROXY? (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.13 9:03 (#2557604 [slashdot.org] )

    TELL ME WHERE I CAN GET AN ANONYMOUS proxy please WIPO Troll. Maybe later i will join you in a snotting at my place. ;P

  33. Re:Taco-Snottage!?!?!? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by vikool [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.13 7:43 (#2557495 [slashdot.org] )

    what is this bull shit,i feel offened that some people feel so so senseless to post stuff like these esp when such a tragic incident has occured

  34. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1)
    by I.T.R.A.R.K. [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.11 22:38 (#2551890 [slashdot.org] )

    Where the fuck do I sign up?!

    - I throw rocks at retarded kids

    "Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."

  35. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 21:53 (#2551753 [slashdot.org] )

    this shit is hilarious..keep up the good work.

  36. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by rockwood [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.11 21:49 (#2551746 [slashdot.org] )

    OMG! That is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard! WHo in their right mind would sit down and waste the time to construct such a replusive story. I guess I'll be skipping lunch and dinner today.. and possibly tomorrow also. The game doesn't affect reality. Reality affects the game.

  37. Re:Ban this! It's disgusting!! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 14:43 (#2550701 [slashdot.org] )

    dude, this is crap-flood material if i ever saw it.
    duuuuuuuuudddddddddddddeeeeeeeee.

  38. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Flamebait)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 8:16 (#2550266 [slashdot.org] )

    horny_rob_6969@hotmail.com

    Ah, so that's what the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.horny-rob newsgroup is about!

  39. MOD THIS UP PLEASE!!! (Score:-1)
    by egg troll [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.11 5:34 (#2550024 [slashdot.org] )

    +5, Arousing

    For more info check out this /. article [google.com]

  40. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 4:39 (#2549891 [slashdot.org] )

    WINNER>

  41. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 4:37 (#2549887 [slashdot.org] )

    I love you. Why do you use your bitchslapped account, rather than signing up for a new account to post at +1 before getting bitchslapped by the censors here? I guess I should speak for myself, but I don't want to log out and lose all my slashdot customization properties, nor do I want to lose my 50 karma yet.

  42. Re:On Taco-Snotting (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.09 9:19 (#2542412 [slashdot.org] )

    you fucking rock! right down to the expanded cvs id!

    WIPO trolls > linux

________________________________________

$Id: tacosnotting.html,v 1.12 2001/12/02 20:07:02 wipo Exp $

uncrackable encryption or no, that's just cool (3, Insightful)

anotherone (132088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701690)

All that I want to know is how exactly they know that it's only emitting one photon.

And as far as I can tell, this is only a silly little theory. So far they've figured out how to emit one photon, but they don't know how to read it. I'm sure that this is gonna be HUGE...

Re:uncrackable encryption or no, that's just cool (1)

os2fan (254461) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701746)

You could {turning logic}, but it would be nearly as slow as Windows XP {MSCE bait}

Re:uncrackable encryption or no, that's just cool (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2702048)

Well, I'm no MSCE but you're one hell of an unfunny asshole!

Re:uncrackable encryption or no, that's just cool (2, Funny)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701763)

Dammit I blinked. Hey Bill reset the machine, let's try again, I'm sure I'll see it this time. Dammit, I keep blinking and missing the photon.

Re:uncrackable encryption or no, that's just cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701805)

They flick the switch really really fast. They supposedly have a guy who can turn the LED on and off so fast that only one photon is emitted. They take his word for it because no one can see him actually flip it.

Security Loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701694)

>>"That's a security loophole and our device is going to plug that,"

We have never heard that statement before.

One Time Pads and Quantum Entanglement (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701696)

The article is unfortunately a little light on details. The application of these devices seems to be for sharing key material for an OTP. Seems that it could be considerably more practical than the quantum entanglement of particles methods previously discussed.

One is the lonliest photon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701698)

I'm glad we have finally surpassed Bulgaria in photon emitting technology.

imagine (0, Redundant)

Festering Leper (456849) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701699)

a beowu... ahh nevermind

Great. (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701701)

. First they build the Super-kamakamode[sic] that can detect a single photon, and now they have ablity to emit them one at a time to! [theonion.com]

And that doesn't even get into their cool anime and hot women [autopr0n.com] .

But seriously, this is going to require a bit of work before it's totally practical for mass usage, right now they would have to use a huge photomultiplier tube in order to actually sense a single photon. I think it'll be a while before CCD or CMOS light detection is that good...

Or hey, maybe we'll all go back to vacuum tube computers :P

Re:Great. (1)

fok (449027) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701945)

They could use it with the single-atom-transistor and the single-slectron-memory and produce a single-IC-motherboard...

Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701703)

Why do people always say, "The BBC are..."? The BBC is SINGLE organization and as a result the verb should be singular: is. This goes for any other organization you can think of as well: Microsoft, IBM, the federal government. "The BBC are" sounds so stupid. Stop the madness people.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701720)

In British and Australian English the standard form for addressing an entity, such as the BBC, is as though it were plural. The BBC are... is thus the correct construct. Only is US English would "The BBC is..." be correct.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701781)

Hey, now I know, thanks! (Doesn't mean it isn't weird though)

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701844)

So that's why they say 'all your base are belong to us.'

British usage (1)

kingdon (220100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701726)

Standard UK usage is to say "Avis are renting me a car", "parcelfarce are idiots", etc. Yes it is strange if you are used to the US practice of using the singular, but it isn't just for the BBC.

Re:Country Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701833)

You are single person criticize grammar but get wrong youself.

> The BBC is SINGLE organization and as a result
> the verb should be singular.

Uncrackable? (1)

coolmdriver (322473) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701709)

Isn't that what they say about every encryption method when it comes out?

Re:Uncrackable? (2)

epsalon (518482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701738)

But quantum crypto is proven to be uncrackable. Just like one-time-pad.

More accurately (2, Informative)

parc (25467) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701876)

More accurately, Quantum encryption IS OTP. The quantum part comes in when you generated the pad.

Re:Uncrackable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701880)

Quantum encryption is currently proven to be uncrackable.

For all we know, 50 to 100 years from some guy named Billy Jugglies will discover the super-unified theorem, which may or may not disprove quantum mechanics, but will probably enable the cracking of the uncrackable.

Either way, what good is quantum mechanics when nobody understands how to use email:

"Hey Bill, look at this. Someone sent me a screen saver. They say it is awesome. I'm gonna install it"

Computer: Are you sure you want to run 'MagicLantern.exe'?

YES!

Re:Uncrackable? (2)

bugg (65930) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701977)

What's your definition of proven?

Considering quantum cryptography is still theory, and there have been no repeatable experiments that prove that cracking it is not possible, a more accurate statement would be "quantum cryptology, by today's understanding of quantum physics, would be uncrackable."

It's very hard to prove that something is not possible. Especially something that has only existed in theory.

Re:Uncrackable? (1)

madenosine (199677) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701839)

No, they say it is very hard to crack. Quantum encryption is backed by physics, not a complex algorithm.

no (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701963)

No one ever said DES is uncrackable. No one (intelligente) has said, nor will ever say, that the new AES is uncrackable. No one (intelligent) has said, nor will ever say, that public-key cryptography is uncrackable. They will say the computations to crack them are "intractable", but not impossible.

The one-time pad (Vernam cipher), however, is uncrackable. It has been used very heavily since it was first introduced (1917) and, beyond being arguably the simplest automated cipher ever devised, is still being proven to be completely 100% uncrackable. Unfortunately, since the key lengths are at least as long as the message, and the keys can only be used once, exchanging keys can be a bit burdensome. Quantum cryptography is basically concerned with ways of exchanging pads securely. If our current understanding of the Heisenburg principle is correct, then current quantum cryptography (in combination with OTP's) is 100% uncrackable.

The failures of previous ciphers, especially public-key ones, is due to underestimating the difficulty (or "intractability") of certain computational tasks, but no one would have ever claimed that they were COMPLETELY secure, just secure ENOUGH. The Vernam cipher does not rely on computation (beyond addition mod 2), and is completely uncrackable.

New technology (4, Funny)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701710)

Man, I wish we could just set our nation's resource distribution slider to 100% for technology for, like, a week. Then we'd have all this great new tech to mess around with!

Of course, we'd have to switch the slider back to 100% social for a couple weeks to quell the riots that resulted in a week of no police, social services, or law. But... nifty new toys!

although, to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2702059)

Mankind did go tens of thousands of years -- until the 19th century -- without police, social services, and proper law (by "proper" law, I mean law which is just and extends to all citizens). Oddly enough, the 19th century was right about the time we started getting riots, too.

law of indeterminacy?? (2, Insightful)

ZeroConcept (196261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701712)

Are they referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle [uoregon.edu] ? What is the law of indeterminacy??

Re:law of indeterminacy?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701843)

I think it's one of those new laws being passed in the US congress right now.

Re:law of indeterminacy?? (1)

_ph1ux_ (216706) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701849)

I was gunna publish a law - but I couldnt determine what it should be about.

Those crazy japanese (0, Troll)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701713)

Those crazy Japanese [theonion.com] . First they build the Super-kamakamode[sic] that can detect a single photon, and now they have ablity to emit them one at a time to!

And that doesn't even get into their cool anime and hot women [autopr0n.com] .

But seriously, this is going to require a bit of work before it's totally practical for mass usage, right now they would have to use a huge photomultiplier tube in order to actually sense a single photon. I think it'll be a while before CCD or CMOS light detection is that good...

Or hey, maybe we'll all go back to vacuum tube computers :P

no! (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701929)

Mod the other post I did as redundant. Seesh.

color (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701723)

Hmm... I wonder what color that photon is? How can they send a single photon through a fibre optic cable and not loose it and still be able to detect it?

1 photon? That doesn't seem like a bright idea. (2, Insightful)

jdrogers (93806) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701725)

Yeah, so we have the law of indeterminacy preventing encryption cracking, blah, blah blah.

But if we are going to consider laws of quantum mechanics, we only have a finite (less than 100%) chance of detecting the photon. So the LED will have to emmit multiple photon so there is a 100% chance of detection.

But then the indeterminacy law breaks down, doesn't it?

Irresponsible (1, Troll)

SumDeusExMachina (318037) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701729)

This is certainly an astounding development in the field of photonics. Maybe now we can all get rid of programs like PGP that leave us vulnerable to government backdoors and move to some real encryption. Quantum encryption, by its very nature, is unbreakable. I thought that I would barely live to see its advent, but now with this it looks like it could be just around the corner.

However, one has to wonder what kind of restrictions that will be placed on this. What would you be able to do with unbreakable encryption? Share information on human rights abuses with your friends? How about plan the destruction of a high-profile government building?

The point is, it's time to show a little responsibility in the academic community. Just like the scientists who go ahead with playing God with stem cells before the ethical ramifications have been fully explored, these researchers have unleashed an unholy nightmare on the world that won't be fully realized until it's too late. It's bad enough that al-Qaida used GPG to communicate and coordinate their plans to commit atrocities agianst the US, but how much safer would you feel knowing that now not even the NSA can decypher their communications? Or even intercept them? It sets a dangerous precedent, and I think they ought to fully understand what they are bringing about before they actually release a prototype.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701749)

I was not aware that PGP had a backdoor. Who discovered this? There may be many even be loopholes with open source encryptian packages that are only known to some mathmaticians in the U.S. government. I don't think you can ever have 100% security with encryption.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701968)

It didn't have a back door, it had a security hole (bug). Doh!

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701771)

like, you trust Furious George and his furious little monkeys to uphold your legal rights when they've got the technical capabilities to abuse them?

Re:Irresponsible (1)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701807)

I agree that sioe scientists should think a little more about the social ramificactions of a technology before it is fully developed, but in this case, they are not doing much more harm than the cipher writers of centuries ago did when those codes were "un-breakable".



The problem is that breakable codes can work against us as much as they work for us. If a top general was sending plans about where they were going to look for members of the al-Qaida network next, I would want them to send it using a truly un-breakable. We have face the fact that people can transfer information in a fashion that does not allow any one else to find out what was transfered. There are many covert channels (stenography) that the al-Qaida network uses that are already very difficult to de-crypt.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701892)

People can have one-to-one communications which are not interceptable by meeting in person and being cautious. Unbreakable encryption just gets rid of the geographic barrier. Maybe we should make laws so that whenever any people (or perhaps just people who fit certain "profiles") meet to discuss anything, they have to inform the government so as to allow them eavesdropping rights?

Re:Irresponsible (5, Funny)

RoninM (105723) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701952)

Well said! I've been lobbying Congress for years to ban all forms of person-to-person interpersonal communication, including encrypted forms. Most Congressmen, are blissfully unaware of the inherent danger in whispering and face-to-face communication in secluded areas, and refuse to place the proper restrictions upon its use until we can more thoroughly investigate the ethical (read: political) ramifications! I hope, anyway, that it's just naïveté. One Senator, who shall remain nameless, seemed to agree with my viewpoint, but wanted to meet in private to discuss it! If that's not proof of the anti-American corruption that plagues our government, nothing is! Needless to say, I turned down his offer, but I won't judge him for his evil actions. Everyone knows the government rules by divine right, and God works in mysterious ways.

Now just imagine the ramifications of allowing secure encryption! What if Osama bin Laden had one of these terminals hooked up in his cave? Instead of using letters and his international installation of terrorists to securely transmit instructions face-to-face, he could have IM'd them! We MUST stop this trend towards privacy and technological innovation if we are going to continue to lead the world in human rights and technological innovations into the future!

Re:Irresponsible (1)

_typo (122952) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701995)

We MUST stop this trend towards privacy and technological innovation if we are going to continue to lead the world in human rights and technological innovations into the future!

The US has a death penalty. "Lead the world in human rights"??? You must be joking!

Re:Irresponsible (1)

tuxlove (316502) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701967)

Maybe now we can all get rid of programs like PGP that leave us vulnerable to government backdoors and move to some real encryption.

Quantum encryption will not replace PGP or any other form of encryption, so far as I see. It's only good for point-to-point encryption of data, protecting someone from eavesdropping on the data stream between those two points. You can still spy on the data beyond either end of the point-to-point link. This technology will be useful for, say, banks who have geographically distant computers passing financial data back and forth, connected by a dedicated link which is physically secure on either end.

This won't be too useful for Joe Internet User, because he doesn't have a direct optical link to all the sites on the Internet he wants to connect to. He connects to an ISP, who connects to another upstream provider, etc., up to the network backbone. Even if each hop was connected via a quantum-encrypted link, the routers themselves are still vulnerable to "tapping", as are Joe User's computer itself and the sites he connects to.

Even if Joe User had a secure direct link between all sites he connects to, he'd be SOL if someone broke into his computer and took his personal documents or the like. So, Joe still has to encrypt personal information above and beyond the encryption provided as part of the data transport. That way, if he's hacked, they can't be discovered, and if he sends them across the net they can't be spied by taps on the various routers between him and the data's destination. Joe can't use quantum encryption for local data, because it's not usable that way. Quantum encryption is only useful as a method of transmitting a one-time pad key between two points, not for encrypting data on a permanent basis on one's hard disk. Read up on one-time pads to see why (the key is as large as the data- not too useful in most cases). So Joe still has to use conventional encryption to truly protect himself.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

_typo (122952) | more than 12 years ago | (#2702047)

Share information on human rights abuses with your friends? How about plan the destruction of a high-profile government building?

How about running an efficient organization that controls world economy and supports major forms of terrorism. (No, not al-Qaida, the US Govt. who supports the worst terrorist state the world has known in the past 1000 years or so. That state being Israel naturally.)

Just like the scientists who go ahead with playing God with stem cells before the ethical ramifications have been fully explored, these researchers have unleashed an unholy nightmare on the world that won't be fully realized until it's too late.

Who has played God with stem cells? We're nowhere near as advanced. But now I'm curious, this "unholy nightmare" would it be the cure for cancer? Parkinson? Cause that's what the method promisses.

It's bad enough that al-Qaida used GPG to communicate and coordinate their plans to commit atrocities agianst the US, but how much safer would you feel knowing that now not even the NSA can decypher their communications?

First I wasn't aware that they used encryption at all. The attack was fairly low-tech. And as for the NSA not being able to decypher communications...reality check...they can't now. My 4096bit PGP private key isn't going to be broken anytime soon.

The point is, it's time to show a little responsibility in the academic community.

The point is others like you have mentioned these things regarding the atom bomb and other such developments. Get this once and for all, scientists by definition create science (that was stupid!) which also by definition is a tool. Invented by a few smart ones to the used by the masses. This leaves you with two options:

1-Label as irresponsible the guy who invented the first boat that eventually lead to the slaughtering of the American natives and other such atrocitys. Label as irresponsible the guy that invented the blade, the fire arm etc, for the damage that those caused has not yet been fully understood.

2-Shut Up! (This may seam like flamefesting but is a real point) If it weren't for these developments I wouldn't be awnsering you in a public forum on the Internet (what's that) inside my room, a few meters away from a bathroom. I'd be shouting an incoherent form of speech inside a cave in the middle of some forest. Now which one do you choose?

The grey reality is that scientists can't be bound by ethics. They're the brains not the conscience in our society. We do need a better conscience but we're not doing any good by trying to force scientists to refrain from making progress. The Vatican tried that already. Galileo's book where he chalenged the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was on their list of banned books up until 1992. By 1992 2 new theories had been formulated and proven wrong (Newton's and Einstein's) and a third was on it's way (superstring theory). What do you think would have happened if the Chuch had gotten it's way? What do you think will happen if the US gets their way?

Any links to the method? (1)

Fjord (99230) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701737)

I tried "law +of indeterminacy" encryption [google.com] and other combinations on google, but it all came up blank. Does anyone have a link describing how to use this for encryption?

Re:Any links to the method? (1)

Hidyman (225308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701802)

The single photon led would not be used for encryption per se.
It would make the link between 2 points secure because the stream couldn't be read without the receiver knowing that the stream had been tampered with.

First, a single-photon LED... (1)

Tsar (536185) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701740)

...next we'll have single-neuron Slashdot posters.

Look, the future is now!

Re:First, a single-photon LED... (1)

redcliffe (466773) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701914)

We already do. They're called anonymous cowards usually. Some Anonymous Cowards are a little smarter, but most aren't.

just teleport it (1)

abes (82351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701744)

I remember seeing a documentary on someone who managed to teleport a photon using entanglement. While I'm sure the equipment/setup/everything is much more expensive, it could theoretically provide an even better method of secure communication. While you might not be able to listen in without diverting the photon from its destination, it is possible to stop the photon period (also as one poster already mentioned, you can't allow for a perfect world, so its always possible for photons to be dropped [or appear to be dropped] requiring another photon to be sent out, and thus making the system again insecure).

Still Waiting (2)

Effugas (2378) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701745)

Physics kooks annoy me. They do. The Alexander Abians, the Time Cube guys, all of em have always bugged me. They've always had the feel of someone who feels themselves too smart to actually do the research to understand something.

So the fact that I hold tremendous doubt in something the physics gurus all take for granted *really* bugs me.

But, I'm telling you. Sooner or later the guys pushing quantum entanglement(*nervous twitch* spatial PRNG *nervous twitch*) will meet up with the guys working on quantum encryption, have some kind of matter/anti-matter postulate collision, and I'll have this big goofy smile on my face.

I'm telling ya, neither work particularly well by themselves, but in the context of the other, both Quantum Crypto(states can't be copied) and Quantum Entanglement(states can be copied, at FTL no less) are completely borked. It's the only kook conviction I haven't been able to shake, and you'll have to email me personally if you want to suffer through my full kook reasoning on it(you can probably guess what it is). But I'm telling ya: Next few years, possibilities are getting shuffled.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Still Waiting (2)

Jerf (17166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701916)

Regrettably, quantum intrusion detection (as this isn't really encryption) and quantum entanglement correspond to "states can't be undetectably read (and subsequently re-created and sent onward)" and "states can change at a distance, but not meaningfully at FTL speeds".

When stated more properly, it can be seen that there are no conflicts, and one isn't going to "save" us from the other. Quantum intrusion detection depends on the uncopyability of certain states (else the intruder could recreate the photon and send it along undetectably). Quantum entanglement has other significant limitations, which ban any form of communication whatsoever at FTL speeds, and make it impracticably difficult to use it in any significant way otherwise.

Keep on kookin'. Reading the Slashdot headline takes on particle physics will definately assist in that endeavor.

Not Useful for Packet Networks (4, Informative)

pryan (169593) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701747)

I've been following this technology with great interest. There seems to be a fundamental problem: it is point to point. Its applications will be fairly limited.

It seems to me, at least in terms of networks, that this would really be used to secure lines between networks, clusters, or individual computers. But on today's public Internet, this isn't really an issue. Of course, I would rather use this technology than to not have lines protected with quantum indeterminism.

Most security people are more concerned about platform security than link security. If this technology can be used to reinforce something used for platform security, then boo yeah! Otherwise, this is cool, but I'm not going to get a heart condition over it.

The only platform benefit I see is reducing the need to perform expensive computations to encrypt and decrypt data. Let the link take care of that and thus increase performance. Of course, how many nodes on the Internet only want to talk to their nearest neighbor? And how many routers and such are between them and their nearest neighbor? It might not even be possible to secure the link between a node and its nearest neighbor in most cases.

I doubt this technology will impact current Internet infrastructure all that much. We'll see.

indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2702088)

This is useful for symmetric-key cryptography only. And, being symmetric-key, its applications extend only to those which use symmetric-key cryptography, not asymmetric-(aka public-)key. Weird, eh!

If it becomes viable, it will likely replace communications where DES, Twofish, AES and other symmetric-key cryptosystems are being used, e.g. ABM's (or ATM's for you yanks), a whole slough of other financial services, maybe cellphones and the like, and other "miscellaneous" purposes (maybe a new "Hotline" from D.C. to Kabul?)

Abstract (3, Informative)

Aetrix (258562) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701777)

Here's the Science Magazine Abstract

----Abstract-----

Electrically Driven Single Photon Source
Zhiliang Yuan 1, Beata E. Kardynal 1, R. Mark Stevenson 1, Andrew J. Shields 1,Charlene J. Lobo 2, Ken Cooper 2, Neil S. Beattie 3, David A. Ritchie 2, Michael Pepper 3
1 Toshiba Research Europe Limited, Cambridge Research Laboratory, 260 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WE, UK.
2 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK.
3 Toshiba Research Europe Limited, Cambridge Research Laboratory, 260 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WE, UK; Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK.

Electroluminescence from a single quantum dot within the intrinsic region of a p-i-n junction is demonstrated to act as an electrically driven single photon source. At low injection currents the dot electroluminescence spectrum reveals a single sharp line due to exciton recombination, while another line due to the biexciton emerges at higher current. The second order correlation function of the diode displays anti-bunching under a DC drive current. Single photon emission is stimulated using sub-nanosecond voltage pulses. These results suggest that semiconductor technology can be used to mass-produce a single photon source for applications in quantum information technology.

-----End Abstract-----

If anyone has access to Science Online (http://www.sciencemag.org) you can download the PDF reprint at this link: here [sciencemag.org] .

NOT Uncrackable (5, Informative)

MikeyNg (88437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701794)

The application refers to its use in quantum cryptography. It doesn't render the encryption process uncrackable, but makes it able to detect that someone is eavesdropping and/or has broken the encryption. With current methods, you can't tell if someone has broken your key and read your message. Using quantum cryptography, you can tell when someone has read your message.


(It all goes along the lines of you can't observe something without changing it. If someone along the way intercepts the message and observes it, they will change the message and you can detect THAT on the other end.)

Re:NOT Uncrackable (2)

CaptainSuperBoy (17170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701875)

I have between little and no understanding of quantum anything, so forgive me if I'm off base. Would the encryption method you're describing require the use of quantum computers, or would it be possible on normal binary computers? It would seem to me that in order for this to work, your computer would have to support a bit whose value was undetermined (a qu-bit).

Re:NOT Uncrackable (2, Informative)

MWright (88261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701934)

Quantum computing and quantum encryption are two different things. Quantum encryption technically would not even need a computer at all... as long as you have some way of transmitting and receiving photons, and some way to detect them, etc., pen and paper would be enough (though very impractical!)

Re:NOT Uncrackable (3, Troll)

jfedor (27894) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701891)

You are mistaken. It is uncrackable. Perhaps not very practical. Read the book.

-jfedor

Re:NOT Uncrackable (5, Informative)

MWright (88261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701920)

It is uncrackable.

It does detect if someone is eavesdropping, but it detects it as the key is generated, not when you send the message. Your post implies that you send the message, and can detect if anyone eavesdrops... this is not the case. Two parties use these quantum effects to generate random numbers... they can detect if someone is eavesdropping on this; if someone is, they don't have to use that key (even if someone does try to eavesdrop, it won't work, by the way). Once they have this key, they can use it in One-Time-Pad encryption, which is also uncrackable (see a text on information theory for an explanation about why OTPs are uncrackable).

rejected (0)

kippy (416183) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701820)

Goddamnit! This is the second time I've posted a story, had it rejected and seen it posted by someone else within an hour.

Shit.

this will crack quantum crypto (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701823)

If this thing gets somewhat more advanced you will eventually become able to use the classic "man in the middle" attack. And since there are no keys involved in the crypto, it will work if you have only a connection to the cable. Sure it will cause some extra errors, as you cannot exactly copy the state of the photons, but that will only lead to the session being restarted, wich will make the mitm attack even simpler.

I see only 1 advantage of using this over traditional electrical wires, you have to actually break the cable to get to the data, but that is also the case now with fibre-optics, so it really doesn't matter.

just my thoughts, are they good ones ? ;-)

it's all about the probability (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2702032)

When M intercepts the photon burst, he naturally modifies it (Heisenburg) before it reaches B. During the verification stage (which takes place over an unsecured line), A & B have a 0.25 probability per bit of detecting that M was eavesdropping. Thus, for an n-bit message, the probability of detecting M's presence is 1 - (3/4)^n.

If we replace M with E, things become even more dire. Like B, E will choose the wrong detector half the time, but it will choose the "wrong" half ("wrong" according to the verification stage). For a message of length n, there is thus a 1 - (1/2)^n probability that E will not be able to recover the message.

Note that quantum cryptography is not meant to be used to send normal plaintext messages. It is meant to be used to transmit one-time-pads. Generally you'd want these one-time-pads millions of bits in length.

Let's suppose you create a protocol to set up an uncrackable, 100% secure channel between yourself (A) and your friend (B). I (M) am a real bastard and want to annoy you by intercepting your key and having lots of fun. You send your friend a one-time pad with your LED, let's say 1kB (8 kbit) in length. Note that this key is thousands of times smaller than your average key would be, but my calcalutor chokes if I don't use an obscenely small number :).

There is a 3e-1000 chance of me sitting in the middle without being detected (of course this probability is exponential, so a sanely-sized keywould give me very little hope indeed!). So, you send your friend 1kB and darn! someone was eavesdropping. You'd think your application would alert you at this time ("hey! I can say with literally 100% certainty that someone is eavesdropping!"), but lets say your application is terribly stupid. So, you restart and send another key. Same thing! Another few keys, then a few thousand more, then a few googol keys here and there. Damn! You've been trying to get this channel started for literally billions and billions of eons, and still you can't quite connect because someone's eavesdropping! Determined, you keep on plugging away. Millions of universes have expanded and collapsed by this time, but you still it says someone is eavesdropping!

Of course the prudent thing to do would be to write your application so that it gives up once there has been found an eavesdropper with *100%* certainty. :)

Anyway, once you finally get a key sent without a man-in-the-middle, you use that key as a OTP for more conventional uncrackable (no probability involved here!) cipher. Presumably with each message, you'd attach and encipher a new OTP along with it (or just use your LED to exchange a new OTP).

Superconducting Fibreoptics (2, Interesting)

Hidyman (225308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701826)

It seems as though for this to work we would need fibreoptics that act as "Superconductors" to keep photons from being "Lost" on the way to their destination.

There's no uncrackable crypto (1, Troll)

andkaha (79865) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701837)

If a human constructed it, a human can deconstruct it. That goes for everything, always.

Re:There's no uncrackable crypto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701848)

Perhaps you should read up on the concept of quantum encryption. Nobody is going waste time explaining the concepts on this thread. Also, please do not post if you know nothing about the subject.

P.S.:
If you feel you can crack quantum encryption, though it is physically impossible, feel free to prove it.

Re:There's no uncrackable crypto (1)

smack_attack (171144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701861)

I can use my quantum computer with quantum decryption to crack it. duh.

Re:There's no uncrackable crypto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2701886)

Photon Light 3! (1)

artlu (265391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701859)

Hey! Now instead of using my photon light from thinkgeek.com to light my path i can shine it on computer systems and log in or use the different colors on an ATM machine in order to get someone else's money! Not to shabby for only $30!
My $0.02.
AJ

A New Level of Precision (1)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701864)

I guess David Allen (inventor of the photon light [photonlight.com] ) is kicking himself now because he's been one-upped when it comes to lighting technology!

Maybe not the *key*, necessarily... (2, Funny)

Cool Hand Luke (16056) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701885)

"We need the detection technology for single photons," said Dr Shields. "But most of the other elements are there. It uses standard telecoms cables.

This sounds like a promising breakthough, although I can't help but wonder how far off in the future the detection technology is. I can claim that I have the key to teleporter technology, object decelerator technology (big, fluffy pillows), but I still need object accelerator technology (a large enough catapult).

Then again *yawn* this object decelerator technology is so comfy... maybe I'll just take a nap...

Man in the middle (2, Interesting)

mickonline (158719) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701899)

Surely this doesn't make it properly uncrackable.

It prevents people from reading the message then passing it on, but not from reading then generating an identical one. Admittedly this is a problem with all mediums, but quantum mechanics aren't the final solution yet.

mick

Uncrackable encryption HOWTO (2)

Luke (7869) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701957)

quantum cryptography + one time cipher = uncrackable

one time cipher + shared secrets = uncrackable

AFAIK, these are the only two that are uncrackable. the latter is impractical because of the necessity of a large quantity of pre-shared random ciphers, and the former due to implementation (but not for long it seems).

Strongest crypto for Britney (3, Funny)

Yodalf (83088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2701962)

What kind of applications will absolutely require this extremely strong crypto?

With the RIAA, the MPAA, MS's DRM OS and this, I can imagine: the whole collection of Britney Spears works protected by quantum crypto.

What a waste.

* shivers *

Any chemists out there now about this? (1)

Amyloid (306245) | more than 12 years ago | (#2702087)

What is the source of this LED? Quantum Dots? Single Molecule? Doped Buckies? SAMs? Anyone know how they do it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>