๐ฃ๐ต๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐!!
Some thoughts on Phillip Ballโs โ๐ค๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐๐บ-๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑย ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ฏโ article published in the Physics Magazine (https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/113)
Decentralized trust is something that you often see rear its ugly (or beautiful if you think so) head now and then. Weโve been hearing and seeing Blockchain based systems (we know how thatโs been doing for sometime now).ย With Quantum Cryptography news continually warning us about breaking traditional security barriers, here is some news about how Quantum Physics makes a claim to improve trust in elections (voting).ย
For argumentโs sake let us imagine (in an imaginary world) that there ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ a political will to weed out corruption from elections and EVMs (Haw!!) ๐ The Quantum approach is novel; but still a far cry from implementation readiness
Elections in India (at least) require a central trust authority (the Chief Election Commission). The Quantum Voting protocol is about removing the "๐๐ฟ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐" assumption โ that other quantum-crypto voting schemes hadn't addressed. No CEC!! ๐
๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐โ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐.
The current world-record GHZ (Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger) state tops out at ๐ญ๐ฐ ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ต๐ผ๐๐ผ๐ป๐, and even that isn't reliable!! A real election needs one qubit per voter โ so a national election needs millions of simultaneously entangled photons. Going from 14 to a few thousand, let alone millions, isn't an incremental engineering step โ multi-photon entanglement gets exponentially harder as photon number grows, because loss and imperfect detection compound at every stage. That's a ๐ฝ๐ต๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ธ, not just an "๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ต" problem.
๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐ ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐น ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฃ๐ต๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ท๐๐บ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฝ๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐ด๐ผ๐ป?
The two demos (mentioned in the Physics review article) didn't even implement the same protocol. One team (Marcellino) built in the anti-cheating verification step but only got ๐ด๐ณ% ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ (a 13% chance any given round is invalid and the whole thing restarts). The other team (Laurent-Puig) got a much better ๐ต๐ฒ% ๐๐๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ โ but only by skipping the verification step, which is the actual security-critical part. So no single demonstration yet has both good reliability and full security checking at once.
๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐๐ผ๐น๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐!!ย
The protocol addresses authority-tampering and voter anonymity from the counting system. It does nothing for voter identity verification or coercion/vote-buying. Funnily, in the same article, Peter Huang (expert in Quantum Cryptography) is quoted as calling โ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐โ or โ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐โ as a "๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น, ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ป๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น" problem!! ๐ Clearly as of now, this is merely a case of over-crediting "quantum" as a fix for election security broadly, when it's a fix for one narrow trust assumption.
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ ๐น๐ถ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ:
This is a nice, honest lab result that proves a specific theoretical trick can be built with real photons โ worth reporting, and the article does it responsibly by quoting researchers who deflate the hype themselves. But it's several fundamental hardware generations away from touching an actual ballot box, and it still has to answer why it should win against cheaper classical cryptographic alternatives that solve a similar trust problem today.
As of today, this seemed more closer to a Physics dream than an engineering plan!! Till then, letโs savor (or grapple with) that ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฎ ๐๐ป๐ธ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. I doubt if this construct will even be used for Boardroom voting (where the GHZ states would at least be meaningful). There hardly will be any political will there either (and what about the cost)!!
References: