Phaelyn Kotuby, 9/10/14, ENGW3302, Musselman, U1D1, IEEE, 1120 words

I was initially drawn to the article The ultimate physical limits of privacy because I believe
privacy is one of the most important concerns of the digital age. Privacy is paramount in allowing
governments and businesses to run smoothly and without unfair interference from competitors; more
importantly, I feel that reasonable personal privacy is a basic human right, and everything must be done
to protect it. However, nearly every week, its reported that yet another website has had its account
databases hacked or another celebrity has had personal files stolen. Information leaks are not a product
of the past few decades, but computers have certainly made it easier the vast majority of people have
no qualms about keeping important documents on their machine and the internet, and details on how to
acquire such materials are more widely available than ever before. As a result, its incredibly important
that computer scientists research new and more powerful cryptographic techniques ones that cant be
cracked so that digital files can be kept private once and for all.

The area of cryptography is a growing knowledge front in computer science. Basic
cryptography has been around for much longer than some would expect; in fact, one of the first
techniques students learn is named the Caesar cipher because it was reportedly used by Julius Caesar
to transmit secret military orders. Researching ever-more complex encryption techniques is an obvious
part of the knowledge front, but a less evident area of inquiry arises from the same difficulty that
Caesars cipher faced: so far, nearly every form of encryption thats been developed can be cracked
given a little knowhow and a lot of time. Further, its often debated whether thus-far untouchable ones
will meet the same fate. This issue, as well as the question of discovering a truly unbreakable encryption

technique, is one on the very edge of the knowledge front that Id very much like to research. Due to
my declared concentration in cyber operations essentially network security I may have an earlier
chance at attacking this front than some, but I likely wont have the opportunity to make any real
headway until well after graduation.

While its currently unknown how long current encryption techniques will stay viable, Ekert &
Renner claim that even the most secure ones of our time are certain to fall with the advancement of
quantum computing [1]. So what are we to do, assuming such a day comes that a quantum computer is
built? Solving this issue is what The ultimate physical limits of privacy centers around. The paper
asserts that completely secure communication could be achieved by observation of quantum photons
that quantum optical techniques can be employed to generate pairs of polarization-entangled photons
[and] such photons respond to measurements, carried out on each of them separately, in a very
coordinated manner [1]. The existence of such a pair of photons would allow two people to separately
observe them, note some correspondent physical property theyre exhibiting, and use this to encode or
decode a message in a previously agreed-upon way (for example, direction of the protons movement).
Further, Ekert & Renner claim that quantum theory dictates that an eavesdroppers probability of
using stolen information to decide the outcome of one photons behavior becomes 1/2; that is, [the
outcome] is uniformly random and independent of any information held by [the eavesdropper] [1].
Given that such man-in-the-middle attacks have been (and continue to be) a great threat to the
integrity of an encryption, defeating them would mean taking a crucial tool out of a code crackers kit.

The article as a whole seems to be written for a general-science audience who may not
necessarily have the appropriate background to understand complicated quantum physics equations.
The authors support all of their statements with concrete evidence, leaning especially mathematical
examples the article is sprinkled with surprisingly simple-to-grasp equations and tables which illustrate
a point. The only prior knowledge that seems to be assumed is familiarity with the cosine function and
unit circle. Further arguments are made around pre-existing research and theorems about quantum
mechanics presented in a simplified fashion. In fact, most of the quantum-theory arguments that make up
the vast majority of the paper are built off of a 2-paragraph explanation of just about everything [the
reader needs] to know about quantum physics for now [1]. While Ekert & Renner dont give terribly
diverse evidence, I feel what they use is more than sufficient to support their claims while not alienating
those not immediately familiar with their field of inquiry.

A compelling piece of evidence in the papers favor is the journal it was published in. Nature is
a weekly publication that prides itself on peer-reviewed, recent, and generally edge-of-the-knowledge
front articles [2]. While its frequent release schedule may suggest that its simply a mill for publication
credits, I think its diverse range of topics from neuroscience to zoology and astrophysics means it
can still manage to be discerning in its choice of which articles to accept. Nature clearly believed that
the concepts in The ultimate physical limits of privacy were exciting enough to make it a cover story
[1], suggesting that the article was groundbreaking enough to capture the interest of people in many
fields apart from computer science and cryptography.

Further evidence to the authors credit are their ties to the academic and business communities
(or lack thereof, in the latter case). Artur Ekert hails from the Mathematical Institute at the University of
Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore [1], showing hes
clearly qualified to back up the many mathematical and quantum-theory-related claims made in the
paper. Additionally, the co-author Renato Renner brings more credit to the physical aspects of the
paper given his connection to the Institute for Theoretical Physics at ETH Zurich [1]. Finally, both
authors declare no competing financial interests [1], so their research is far more likely to be motivated
by truly wanting to be involved in preserving privacy than in protecting the interests of companies, even
though their findings would surely benefit such establishments.

The ultimate physical limits of privacy introduces concepts that are both incredibly exciting to
me as a computer scientist and crucial for anyone who wishes to reclaim their right to digital privacy.
Password leaks could become a thing of the past, allowing institutions to use the internet to expedite
confidential communications, kicking the speed of the business world into high gear, and freeing
individuals from the fear of losing our financial accounts, important emails, or precious Instagram
uploads. The quantum cryptography mentioned in the article is only the tip of the iceberg, though. Tying
computers into the quantum world could be one of the biggest steps we ever take, forcing us to
rethink everything weve learned up until this point; I look forward to being able to reach this knowledge
front and begin further researching the implications quantum computing would have on our world.


Works Cited

[1] A. Ekert and R. Renner, The ultimate physical limits of privacy, Nature, vol. 507, no. 7493, 2014,
pp. 443-447.
[2] Unknown author, About the journal: Nature, Sept. 2014;
www.nature.com/nature/about/index.html.