The microblog: 2018.04.12 05:55:20

2018.04.12 05:55:20 (984278771799912448) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (983316827332841473):

Consider the statement that QKD exchanges "a cryptographic key between two remote parties with absolute security, guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics". This statement communicates false information to the reader. Are you claiming that this depends on "broader context"?


2018.04.03 19:24:55 (981221018743328769) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

I object on "absolute security", not on "guaranteed by the {fundamental,} laws of physics"

2018.04.03 19:38:00 (981224310831505408) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (981221018743328769):

The "guaranteed by the laws of physics", as I already told you, has a different meaning than you claim, as clearly stated in the full text of the papers you cite (except the marketing document)

2018.04.08 08:53:48 (982874132273606656) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (981224310831505408):

Let me see if I understand. A reader in your world, facing a statement that clearly says X, goes reading through the entire paper that contains the statement to figure out whether there are admissions that X isn't actually true, and then reinterprets the statement accordingly?

2018.04.09 14:12:55 (983316827332841473) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

I do not agree on “clearly says X”. I used the broader context to assert the meaning. I can’t think of anyone reading the CSS code-paper without knowledge of standard QKD threat model. In your world, if your first interpretation of X is contradicted by the text, you don’t care ?