Skip to content

Menu

Steptoe & Johnson LLP logo
HomeAboutServicesContactMedia MentionsSteptoe BlogsSub-Menu6G: A Step Beyond Telecom BlogAntitrust & Competition BlogBlockchain BlogGlobal Trade Policy BlogInternational Compliance BlogInvestigations & Enforcement BlogPURPA & Distributed Energy Resources BlogSDNY Blog
Search
Close

Cyberblog

Home > Antitrust > Episode 391: How Much of the Quantum Tech Boom Is Just Welfare for Physicists?

Episode 391: How Much of the Quantum Tech Boom Is Just Welfare for Physicists?

By Stewart Baker on January 24, 2022
Posted in Antitrust, China, Quantum Computing, Social Media
https://www.steptoe.com/podcasts/TheCyberlawPodcast-391.mp3

That’s the question I had after reading Law and Policy for the Quantum Age, by Chris Hoofnagle and Simson Garfinkel. It’s a gracefully written and deeply informative look at the commercial and policy prospects of quantum computing and several other (often more promising) quantum technologies, including sensing, communications, and networking. And it left me with the question that heads this post. So, I invited Chris Hoofnagle to an interview and came away thinking the answer is “close to half – and for sure all the quantum projects grounded in fear and envy of the presumed capabilities of the National Security Agency of the United States.” My exchange with Chris makes for a bracing and fast-paced half hour of futurology and policy and not to be missed.

Also, not to be missed: Conservative Catfight II – Now With More Cats. That’s right, Jamil Jaffer and I reprise our past debate over Big Tech regulation, this time focusing on 2992, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, just voted out of the Senate Judiciary committee with a bipartisan set of supporters and detractors. In essence, the bill would impose special “no self-preferencing” obligations on really large platforms. Jamil, joined by Gus Hurwitz, thinks this is heavy handed government regulation for a few unpopular companies, and completely unmoored from any harm to consumers. Jordan Schneider weighs in to point out that it is almost exactly the solution chosen by the Chinese government in its most recent policy shift. I argue that platforms are usually procompetitive when they start but inherently open to a host of subtle abuses once entrenched, so only a specially crafted rule will prevent a handful of companies achieving enormous economic and political power.

Doubling down on controversy, I ask Nate Jones to explain Glenn Greenwald’s objections to the subpoena practices of Congress’s Jan. 6 Committee. I conclude that the committee’s legal arguments boil down to “When Congress wrote rules for government, it clearly didn’t intend for the rules to apply to Congress.” And that Greenwald is right in arguing that the Supreme Court in the 1950s insisted that Communists be treated better than the Jan.6 committee is treating anyone even tangentially tied to the attack on the Capitol.

Nate and I try to figure out what Forbes was smoking when it tried to gin up a scandal from a standard set of metadata subpoenas to WhatsApp. Whatever it was, Forbes will need plenty of liquids and a few hours in a dark quiet room to recover.

In quick hits, Gus explains what it means that the Biden administration is rewriting the DOJ/FTC merger guidelines: essentially, the more the administration tries to make them mean, the less deference they’ll get in court. And Jordan and I puzzle over the emphasis on small and medium business in China’s latest five-year plan for the digital economy.

                                                                                                       

Download the 391st Episode (mp3)

 

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Tags: China, Metadata, National Security Agency, quantum computing, select or special committee - Congress, social media, Technology Legislation
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
Episode 416: “The First Thing We Do, Let’s Hack All the Lawyers”
July 11, 2022
Episode 426: Chip Wars
October 17, 2022
Episode 424: Big Tech’s Chickens Coming Home to Roost
October 3, 2022
Photo of Stewart BakerStewart BakerPartner

Stewart Baker’s career has spanned national security and law. He served as General Counsel of the National Security Agency, Assistant Secretary for Policy at the…

Stewart Baker’s career has spanned national security and law. He served as General Counsel of the National Security Agency, Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security, and drafter of a report reforming the intelligence community after the Iraq War. His legal practice focuses on cyber security, CFIUS, export controls, government procurement, and immigration and regulation of international travel.

Show more Show less
Photo of Michael VatisMichael VatisPartner

Michael Vatis has spent most of his career addressing cutting edge issues at the intersection of law, policy, and technology. Michael’s practice focuses on Internet…

Michael Vatis has spent most of his career addressing cutting edge issues at the intersection of law, policy, and technology. Michael’s practice focuses on Internet, e-commerce, and technology matters, providing legal advice and strategic counsel on matters involving privacy, security, encryption, intelligence, law enforcement, Internet gambling, and international regulation of Internet content.

Show more Show less

About this Blog

Steptoe Cyberblog, with its sometimes contrasting insights, serves up opinionated and provocative thoughts on the issues — especially cybersecurity and privacy — that arise at the intersection of law, information technology, and security.

Read More....

Stay Connected

Twitter RSS LinkedIn

Topics

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Bonus Episode 435: How Privilege Undermines Cybersecurity
  • Episode 434: ChatGPT Successfully Imitates a Talented Sociopath with Too Many Lawyers
  • Episode 432: Toxified Tech
  • Episode 431: The Empire Strikes Back, at Twitter
  • Episode 430: Election Aftershocks for Cyberlaw

Links

  • Deeplinks Blog
  • Hillicon Valley
  • Homeland Security Watch
  • Instapundit
  • PolicyBets
  • Privacy Lives
  • Tech Daily Dose
  • Tech Dirt
  • Technology Academic Policy (TAP) Blog
  • Technorati Media
  • The Volokh Conspiracy

Cyberblog

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20036
Twitter RSS LinkedIn Technology Academic Policy (TAP) Blog Threat Level: Privacy, Crime and Security Online Deeplinks Blog Tech Daily Dose PolicyBets Hillicon Valley Homeland Security Watch The Volokh Conspiracy Technorati Media Tech Dirt Privacy Lives Instapundit
Privacy PolicyTerms of Use

About Steptoe

In more than 100 years of practice, Steptoe has earned an international reputation for vigorous representation of clients before governmental agencies, successful advocacy in litigation and arbitration, and creative and practical advice in structuring business transactions. Steptoe has more than 500 lawyers and other professional staff across offices in Beijing, Brussels, Chicago, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. For more information, visit www.steptoe.com.

Copyright © 2023, Steptoe & Johnson LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo