Artificiële Intelligentie & Recht
Innovation, Quantum-AI Technology & Law
0

Blog over Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum, Deep Learning, Blockchain en Big Data Law

Blog over juridische, sociale, ethische en policy aspecten van Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum Computing, Sensing & Communication, Augmented Reality en Robotica, Big Data Wetgeving en Machine Learning Regelgeving. Kennisartikelen inzake de EU AI Act, de Data Governance Act, cloud computing, algoritmes, privacy, virtual reality, blockchain, robotlaw, smart contracts, informatierecht, ICT contracten, online platforms, apps en tools. Europese regels, auteursrecht, chipsrecht, databankrechten en juridische diensten AI recht.

Berichten met de tag Post-Quantum Cryptography
War on the Rocks Publishes 'Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First'
War on the Rocks Publishes 'Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First'

One Race, Five Fronts

War on the Rocks published Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First on July 20, 2026 — a new essay by Mauritz Kop, founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, and Joseph Federici of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Its argument: the United States and its allies should field strategically significant quantum capabilities before China does, and should run cryptography, quantum-AI, networks, sensing, and the supply chain as one race under one office. The Commission's goal is Quantum First by 2030. The essay opens with the threat that makes the goal urgent — hard drives filling up with harvested encrypted traffic, waiting for a quantum computer to read the vulnerable public-key layer — and walks each front: federal migration deadlines for high-value systems whose private-sector counterparts are, in the authors' words, "only being asked politely"; a speculative "X-Ray City" scenario in which quantum sensors fuse with AI into a surveillance layer the authors say no policy document yet addresses; China's quantum-secure communications network of more than 12,000 kilometers and the risk of network standards written in Beijing; and a supply chain that, in the essay's assessment, no single country can build alone.

From Bletchley Park to European Boardrooms

The essay is the natural successor to "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age," carrying the Bletchley method — science, engineering, operations, and alliance management as one integrated system — from the cryptographic migration to the entire quantum ecosystem. Kop writes that it grows from the scholarship of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, inaugurated in 2023 during Mark Rutte's Stanford visit, with work published in Science, Nature Physics, and the Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Berkeley law journals. Read from Europe, the essay previews questions heading for European agendas: migration deadlines that travel through procurement chains and G7 coordination, a cryptographic inventory that is turning into a board-level question for entities covered by NIS2 and DORA, and export-control and certification choices that will shape the European quantum market. In this post we summarize the essay's five fronts, place it in the Stanford quantum governance corpus, and set out our analysis of what Quantum First asks of European general counsel, compliance teams, and boards — starting with the contracts their organizations sign this year.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopWar on the Rocks, Quantum Governance, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Quantum First, Supply Chains
From Kananaskis to Évian: Will the G7 Govern Quantum, or Keep Describing It?
From Kananaskis to Évian: Will the G7 Govern Quantum, or Keep Describing It?

When G7 leaders meet in Évian-les-Bains from June 15 to 17, 2026, quantum technology sits on the leaders' table for a second consecutive year. In a new CIGI op-ed, Stanford and CIGI legal scholar Mauritz Kop argues that the era of shared values and summit language has run its course: between the Kananaskis Common Vision and the OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies, the conceptual groundwork is done. What remains is implementation — and implementation is what voluntary coordination delivers slowly, unevenly, or never.

From a Common Vision to Working Machinery

Kananaskis named the right concerns in June 2025 but built light machinery — no timelines, no benchmarks, no procurement commitments. A year on, Kop puts the question to Évian directly: does the G7 intend to govern quantum, or to keep describing it? His answer is not another principles instrument but a delivery body with named products and deadlines, reporting back to leaders at the 2027 summit.

Five Decisions for Évian

The piece sets out five decisions leaders can take in France: post-quantum cryptography migration milestones for critical infrastructure; trusted and resilient quantum supply chains; standards-based governance backed by procurement; dual-use coordination through a least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient and innovation-preserving (LSI) test; and vigilance on the market structure of an industry already concentrating around a few compute-, patent- and talent-rich incumbents.

Each decision turns a value into something auditable. The "harvest-now, decrypt-later" threat makes cryptographic migration a present-tense problem with an unknown deadline; when Google gives itself until 2029, governments that have given themselves ten years should take notice. The same logic runs through supply-chain chokepoints, technical standards and export controls — defaults that will be written by someone, and better written deliberately than by accident.

The Window Is Still Open

Quantum is leaving the laboratory and becoming strategic infrastructure, a shift central banks already treat as systemic. The window for writing the rules of the road remains open, Kop warns, but it will not stay open forever. For the legal and policy background to the dual-use argument, see our coverage of the LSI test for securing the quantum industrial commons.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopQuantum Governance, G7, CIGI, Post-Quantum Cryptography, OECD, Dual-Use, Market Power, Supply Chains, Quantum Technology
NATO StratCom Features Mauritz Kop as Subject Matter Expert in Workshop Video on Quantum and Cognitive Sovereignty
NATO StratCom Features Mauritz Kop as Subject Matter Expert in Workshop Video on Quantum and Cognitive Sovereignty

The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence engaged Mauritz Kop as a subject-matter expert for its Riga workshop The Integrity of Reality and Cognitive Sovereignty—via a thirty-minute video interview recorded as study material for participants and as input to the Centre's threatcasting work.

A video briefing for Riga

Held in early June 2026, in the week of the Centre's flagship Riga StratCom Dialogue, the workshop examined what happens to shared truth when both conflict and communication are increasingly automated. Kop's recorded interview adds the layer the strategic-communications field is only beginning to map: the quantum layer. His opening line does the analytical work of a whole briefing—the past is not yet stable. The argument extends the case he made when the Hoover Institution invited him to speak on quantum, democracy, and authoritarianism.

Three quantum pressures on the mind's privacy

The interview names three converging pressures on cognitive sovereignty: civic-scale quantum sensing that, in principle, could resolve subsurface and interior spaces from public rights-of-way—what Kop calls the X-Ray City scenario; quantum-enhanced biosensing and brain-computer interfaces that open the inference of mental states; and the temporal instability of the cryptographic record under harvest-now, decrypt-later collection. For the first two, Kop argues for capability protection—prohibition-grade guardrails at the infrastructure layer, not consent forms after deployment.

Why communicators should care about cryptography

An adversary who can retroactively forge or contest the signed record does not need to fabricate convincingly—only to seed doubt at scale. The interview's prescription is precision over speed: the LSI test for every proposed control, standards-first governance, and verifiable allied migration to post-quantum cryptography as the strategic-communications measure rarely recognized as one.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Geopolitics, GovernanceHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, National Security, Quantum Governance, Geopolitics, Post-Quantum Cryptography, NATO, NATO StratCom COE, Cognitive Sovereignty, Riga StratCom Dialogue, Threatcasting, Quantum Sensing
OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies Builds on Responsible Quantum Principles Developed at Stanford RQT
OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies Builds on Responsible Quantum Principles Developed at Stanford RQT

On May 28, 2026, the OECD Council adopted OECD/LEGAL/0508, the Recommendation of the Council on Quantum Technologies—the first intergovernmental standard to set shared principles for the responsible development and use of trusted quantum technologies. Its four high-level principles and five policy recommendations will read as familiar to anyone who has followed responsible-quantum scholarship, because the instrument's core ideas track work that the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and its founder, Mauritz Kop, helped build over the previous half-decade.

The first intergovernmental quantum standard

Developed through a multistakeholder process—forty-seven experts from twenty-six nationalities across four scoping meetings in 2025, building on the OECD's January 2025 Quantum Technologies Policy Primer—the Recommendation asks all Actors to promote innovation that respects democratic values, to prevent and mitigate harms across the technology lifecycle, to promote secure and broad access, to facilitate collaboration, and to foster accountability and trustworthiness. It is non-binding but normatively weighty: thirty-eight adherents are now expected to implement it through their own legal frameworks. The OECD's broader responsible-quantum-technology agenda has long argued that the field needs exactly this kind of shared, anticipatory baseline.

A visible lineage, not a formal citation

The Recommendation names no academic source, and nothing in its text formally credits Stanford RQT. What it shows is conceptual lineage. Its lifecycle-embedded, values-first framing echoes the Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation; its post-quantum-cryptography and quantum-resilient-infrastructure language draws on the same concern with cryptanalysis that animated Kop's 2021 Yale legal-ethical framework; its accountability-and-trustworthiness principle parallels families in the World Economic Forum Quantum Computing Governance Principles he helped conceptualize; and its call for science-based standards mirrors the standards-first program he and colleagues set out in Science. Kop was among the experts consulted in the course of the OECD's quantum-policy work, an engagement that sits within a longer record of peer-reviewed calls for responsible quantum technology.

Why anticipation is the right posture

Both the Recommendation and the scholarship it echoes favor agile, forward-looking, evidence-based governance—and the physics explains why. Quantum technologies draw their power from superposition and entanglement, phenomena that do not scale gently: an entanglement-enabled sensor can cross a sensitivity threshold, and a cryptanalytically relevant machine can render trusted public-key cryptography suddenly breakable, in ways that arrive nonlinearly. Governance that waits for a capability to mature arrives too late by construction. This is the case the responsible-quantum field, including the Quantum-ELSPI research agenda, has pressed since 2021—and the case OECD/LEGAL/0508 now encodes for thirty-eight economies.

What comes next

The Recommendation tasks the OECD's Digital Policy Committee and Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy to develop practical guidance and to report back within five years, so the standard is built to evolve with the technology. Its arrival signals that these responsible-quantum arguments have reached the institutions that set international norms—a quiet but consequential validation of work begun years earlier at Stanford.

Meer lezen
Stanford RQT, Governance, Quantum TechnologyHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Policy, Standards, Human Rights, Ethics, OECD, OECD-LEGAL-0508, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, International Standards, Responsible Quantum Innovation
CNAS Interviews Mauritz Kop for The Entanglement Edge Quantum Networking Report
CNAS Interviews Mauritz Kop for The Entanglement Edge Quantum Networking Report

The Center for a New American Security has published The Entanglement Edge: U.S. Strategic Priorities in Quantum Networking—and Mauritz Kop briefed the CNAS research team on quantum networking and cybersecurity in November 2025, as part of the expert interviews behind it.

The entanglement edge, soberly measured

The report by Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante and Morgan Peirce declines the hype on both sides. Quantum key distribution is a niche complement, not a replacement, for post-quantum cryptography; China's 10,000-kilometer QKD network is real infrastructure but not next-generation readiness; and America's task is to fund what compounds—interconnects, benchmarks, supply chains, PQC migration—while declining to subsidize theater.

Where Kop's briefing landed

Kop gave the researchers an administrable rule: "PQC by default"—QKD only where incremental assurance can be proven over cost and complexity, quantum random-number generators widely for stronger entropy. His briefing pressed the shift from guidance to verifiable outcomes: a federal transition lead with a public dashboard, procurement requiring validated FIPS 203/204/205 modules, crypto-agility drills, and allied "one test, many markets" certification so the coalition's cryptographic baseline cannot fracture into a quantum splinternet. It is the operational sequel to the positions he brought to the U.S. Department of State on quantum technology and foreign policy.

What planners should take away

The harvest-now, decrypt-later campaigns are already running; the contest that decides their outcome is over verification—whose security architecture can be tested, certified, and trusted across an alliance. Reports built on dozens of expert interviews, rather than vendor decks, are how that architecture gets designed before the deadline arrives.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Cybersecurity, Think TankMauritz KopMauritz Kop, National Security, Quantum Governance, Cybersecurity, Standards, Post-Quantum Cryptography, CNAS, Quantum Networking, QKD, The Entanglement Edge
Mauritz Kop Interviewed for IDC PeerScape Report on Quantum Computing Governance Practices
Mauritz Kop Interviewed for IDC PeerScape Report on Quantum Computing Governance Practices

International Data Corporation (IDC), the global IT market-intelligence firm, has published IDC PeerScape: Practices for Quantum Computing Governance (May 2026, Doc # US54518926), by David Weldon and Heather West, PhD. The report distills how forward-thinking organizations are building governance for quantum computing on top of their existing data and risk-management practices—and Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, was interviewed and contributed expert responses for attribution.

A buyer-side discipline, not a research curiosity

The PeerScape genre is peer-learning guidance: IDC collects what organizations already moving on a problem are doing and packages it for the technology buyer—the CIO, CISO, and risk owner. By treating quantum governance this way, an established IT-research house signals that quantum readiness has become a present-tense program for enterprises, not a topic reserved for policy seminars. The organizations profiled include the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, an academic center, alongside industry organizations.

The two-pronged risk

IDC frames the urgency around the cryptographic clock. Sensitive data needs protection now against "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks, in which encrypted traffic captured today is unsealed once a sufficiently capable quantum computer exists; and migrating critical infrastructure to post-quantum cryptographic standards is complex enough that it must begin now. The arithmetic is unforgiving: any data whose confidentiality must outlast the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum machines is at risk, which is why migration is a near-term governance obligation rather than a deferred IT task.

Governance engineered as an operating system

Kop's contribution carries the through-line of his work at Stanford RQT: turning quantum governance from principles into implementable operating models. He describes strategies that are operational (decision rights, controls, assurance, lifecycle gates), strategic (dual-use posture and geopolitics), and domain-aware (post-quantum cryptography, intellectual property, and sectoral use cases in medicine, finance, and space). Principles alone, he argues, do not scale—governance must be engineered with explicit RACI, stage-gates, documentation, and assurance, and a standards-based quantum-technology quality management system gives organizations an auditable, repeatable baseline.

Part of a widening practitioner record

The IDC interview joins a pattern of bringing responsible-quantum research to the people who must implement it, complementing Kop's policy work such as the global quantum policy brief published by CIGI. The same operating-system thesis recurs across audiences—from risk professionals to IT buyers to states—because it is designed to scale across functions. The deeper lesson is that quantum governance is best treated as an asset to build now: organizations that map their use cases, stage-gate their controls, adopt standards-first assurance, and plan for regulatory interoperability convert a long-horizon threat into resilience and license to operate. Readers can find more on the underlying scholarship through Kop's profile and selected works.

Meer lezen
Quantum Computing, Governance, StandardizationMauritz KopMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Standards, Policy, IDC, PeerScape, Post-Quantum Cryptography, QT-QMS, Quantum Computing, Risk Management
BioLawLaPaLooZa: Mauritz Kop on Hippocratic Quantum and the End of Stable Records at Stanford Law School
BioLawLaPaLooZa: Mauritz Kop on Hippocratic Quantum and the End of Stable Records at Stanford Law School

At BioLawLaPaLooZa, the annual law-and-biosciences conference convened at Stanford Law School by Henry T. "Hank" Greely and co-hosted with the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Mauritz Kop delivered a talk that fused two strands of his recent work: the biomedical-ethics argument of his Harvard-published Hippocratic Quantum project and the security lens of his NATO Strategic Communications advisory work. It was his third appearance at the gathering, which builds on his earlier BioLawLaPaLooZa remarks.

The past is not yet stable

Kop's organizing line was that "the past is not yet stable." Rather than treating the quantum threat as a future event, he argued that today's authenticated, confidential records are contingent on a cryptographic transition still under way: adversaries can harvest encrypted data now and decrypt it once a Shor-capable machine factors the large integers beneath RSA. Confidentiality, in this reading, must be defended retroactively as well as prospectively—making the migration to post-quantum cryptography, for hospitals and biobanks, a clinical duty rather than an IT preference. The point reframes a familiar threat model: the danger is not only what a future machine will decrypt, but what is being copied and stored today against that day.

Four classical principles, recomputed

The talk recast the four principles of biomedical ethics—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—for a quantum register. Quantum does not replace them, Kop said; it changes what applying them requires. Autonomy comes to demand data sovereignty and a credible right not to know as quantum-AI systems build finer probabilistic patient models. Dual-use simulators that design therapeutics can also lower the barrier to designing pathogens, which is where his LSI test—least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving—supports tiered disclosure over blanket secrecy. And the justice problem is a widening one: the quantum divide, he warned, may prove steeper than the digital divide.

The X-Ray City and a constitution for medicine

Widening the lens, Kop described civic-scale quantum gravimetric and magnetic sensors moving from the laboratory toward infrastructure pilots—able, from public rights-of-way, to resolve subsurface and interior spaces, and so to reach into the privacy of the home. He calls this prospect the X-Ray City, and said he had told NATO it needs a Hippocratic Quantum posture of its own. He closed with a "quantum constitution for medicine" in four standards of care: quantum-safe encryption, sovereignty over patient digital twins, human oversight in the loop, and tiered disclosure under the LSI test. The premise the room had not heard before, he suggested, was simply that the past itself is not yet settled.

Meer lezen
Academics, Healthcare, Stanford RQTHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Healthcare, Ethics, Quantum Governance, Quantum Technology, Stanford Law School, Hippocratic Quantum, BioLawLapalooza, Hank Greely, Post-Quantum Cryptography, LSI Test, Quantum-AI, Petrie-Flom Center
StateScoop Interviews Mauritz Kop About Ohio House Bill 650 on Quantum Technology
StateScoop Interviews Mauritz Kop About Ohio House Bill 650 on Quantum Technology

When a statehouse starts asking serious questions about quantum computing, something has shifted. StateScoop—the Washington outlet that covers state and local government technology—has interviewed Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, about Ohio House Bill 650: legislation, passed unanimously by the Ohio House and now before the Senate, that would create a Frontier Technologies and Quantum Commission to study quantum computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and robotics, and report recommendations to the General Assembly by the end of 2026.

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

The commission would seat members of both chambers and draw on outside experts—an institutional answer to a structural problem. Emerging technologies now advance faster than traditional legislative cycles, and the gap between innovation and regulation widens every session a legislature waits. Ohio's answer is to build standing expertise before quantum systems are woven into procurement, infrastructure, and security frameworks, rather than legislating after the fact. It is, as Kop puts it in the interview, the role of state commissions to serve as "an essential laboratory for anticipatory governance."

Three messages from the interview

Kop's advice to Ohio distills into three propositions. First, anticipatory governance works: states that organize knowledge early write better rules later. Second, post-quantum cryptography migration is "really a country wide effort"—state agencies hold health records, tax data, and election infrastructure whose confidentiality must outlive the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum machines, and migration timelines are measured in years, not budget cycles. Third, ethics embedded smartly in regulation does not slow innovation—it propels it, by giving industry predictable rules and the public reasons to trust what is being built.

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

Ohio is not moving alone. California, Texas, New Mexico, and Maryland have each launched quantum initiatives of their own, and the federal picture is evolving in parallel—terrain Kop knows from advising the U.S. Department of State on quantum technology and foreign policy strategy. The emerging pattern is federalism doing what it does best: fifty laboratories testing governance designs for a technology whose economic and security consequences will be national. The full StateScoop article includes Kop's remarks on commissions, cryptography, and the innovation case for ethics—and this post walks through its key arguments.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Regulation, Stanford RQT, Quantum Technology, Standards, StateScoop, Ohio House Bill 650, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, State Legislation
Mauritz Kop Consults Amgen on Quantum-Biomedical Discovery
Mauritz Kop Consults Amgen on Quantum-Biomedical Discovery

Invited by Howard Chang—the physician-scientist who led a renowned genomics laboratory at Stanford and now serves as Senior Vice President, Global Research, and Chief Scientific Officer at Amgen—Mauritz Kop consulted with Amgen's research organization on quantum-biomedical discovery: a disciplined exchange of ideas about where quantum methods can genuinely improve the way medicines are found.

An invitation from Amgen's chief scientist

The conversation paired deep biology with quantum strategy and governance. Its anchor was the Hippocratic Quantum approach Kop published at Harvard: accelerate discovery with quantum and quantum-classical methods, but under guardrails medicine itself would prescribe—validation, privacy, security, and patient trust from the first experiment. The same translational seriousness ran through the responsible-quantum lecture and workshop Kop gave at SandboxAQ.

Six use cases, one discipline

From computational chemistry for de novo discovery and lead optimization, through protein structure and selected omics analytics, metabolism and toxicity simulation, blood-brain-barrier hypotheses validated in organoid and lab-on-a-chip systems, operational optimization, and a watchlist for quantum neural networks—every candidate use case answers to the same rule: benchmark hard against strong classical baselines from day one, and let the evidence decide which pilots earn the next dollar.

Guardrails before hype

The strategy's quiet half is security and governance: a post-quantum cryptography roadmap for long-lived patient and research data, vendor diversification across qubit modalities, trade-secret and IP protection, and standards alignment. What the exchange was about, in the end, is decision quality—smarter discovery pipelines, better-protected data, and medicines that reach patients sooner.

Meer lezen
Healthcare, Quantum Technology, MedicineHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Quantum Governance, Healthcare, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Amgen, Hippocratic Quantum, Quantum Medicine, Drug Discovery, Biomedical Discovery
An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons
An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons

Mauritz Kop—Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and a CIGI Senior Fellow—has posted as a preprint a book-length Article that reframes quantum strategy as a problem of disciplined openness. The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security argues that democracies should pursue neither closure nor laissez-faire, but "security-sufficient openness," screened through a single administrable test. It is a strategic companion to the cryptographic argument set out in "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age."

Deterrence by denial for democratic resilience

The Article's organizing idea is responsible quantum technology reframed as values-based deterrence by denial: a legal, ethical, and institutional control plane that protects the shared "quantum industrial commons"—talent, tooling, standards, supply chains, and the research base—against authoritarian appropriation. Deterrence by denial aims to make hostile gains too slow or costly to be worthwhile, rather than relying on the threat of retaliation, and the Article presents it as the least escalatory way to preserve crisis stability. It situates the analysis against an approaching strategic "event horizon," citing the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's call for a "Quantum First by 2030" posture and parallel White House initiatives to secure critical inputs.

The LSI test

The central contribution is the LSI test, which asks whether any given control is least-trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, and innovation-preserving. The test is built to avoid two failure modes: over-securitization, which chills publication, standards leadership, and venture formation, and under-securitization, which leaks crown-jewel capabilities that are slow to reacquire. LSI is applied across a "pillarized" quantum stack—computing, sensing, simulation, networking, communication, quantum-AI hybrids, and enabling materials—and to its upstream dependencies in patent and trade-secret doctrine, government-funded IP and data rights, export controls, investment screening, and cryptographic baselines including post-quantum cryptography and crypto-agility. The framing borrows from physics with care: because the relevant systems are genuinely probabilistic, the Article uses the "Eight Worlds" scenario method to keep governance robust across divergent futures.

A coalition playbook against a "Silicon Curtain"

Rather than stop at theory, the Article assembles an implementable coalition playbook—administrable criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails, including red-zone domains where denial is the default—and integrates instruments of economic statecraft such as a strategic critical-minerals reserve and a Quantum Criticality Index. Its closing warning is that mishandled securitization could raise a self-defeating "Silicon Curtain" between allied innovators; the constructive alternative is standards-first interoperability treated as a stabilizing feature of the international order. The work has been posted as a preprint on arXiv and is announced on AIRecht in the Nexus paper announcement.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, GeopoliticsHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Intellectual Property, National Security, Stanford RQT, Geopolitics, Standards, Policy, LSI test, Deterrence by Denial, Quantum Industrial Commons, CIGI, Export Controls, Post-Quantum Cryptography, arXiv
GARP Interviews Mauritz Kop on Quantum Governance Strategies for Risk Professionals
GARP Interviews Mauritz Kop on Quantum Governance Strategies for Risk Professionals

The Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) interviewed Mauritz Kop for David Weldon's article Full-Scale Quantum Computing May Be Years Away. Risk Mitigation Can't Wait.—bringing quantum governance to the desks of risk professionals worldwide.

Q-Day is the wrong question

Kop's message to the risk profession inverts the usual timeline anxiety. The immediate danger is not a cinematic moment when encryption falls; it is the quiet accumulation of harvested data—financial records, identity data, health and government archives—collected today for decryption tomorrow, compounded by weak vendor oversight and a lack of crypto-agility. Records that outlive their cryptography may already face that exposure, whatever the hardware roadmaps say.

Five must-haves for a quantum governance strategy

The strategy Kop laid out is deliberately operational: a PQC migration roadmap anchored in asset classification and harvest-now-decrypt-later exposure; board-level ownership; integration with existing cyber, model, and operational risk frameworks; vendor due diligence on quantum-safety claims; and independent testing and benchmarking instead of marketing trust. Layered across architecture, algorithms, and operations, it treats quantum as an extension of disciplines risk professionals already command—the same principles-to-practice arc as the global quantum policy brief he co-authored at CIGI.

From the trading floor to the boardroom

Quantum, Kop argues, is both threat and tool for finance: it endangers the confidentiality of everything archived, and it is being explored for better simulation, optimization, and risk discovery. His benchmark for the U.S.: core post-quantum migration substantially done before 2030 for long-lived data and critical systems. The institutions that will meet that deadline are the ones whose boards treat quantum readiness as governance, not as someone else's research project.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, CybersecurityMauritz KopMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Standards, Post-Quantum Cryptography, GARP, Risk Management, Financial Services, Crypto-Agility, Quantum Technology Impact Assessment
Mauritz Kop Advises Stanford FSI Students on Quantum Policy and Cybersecurity Project
Mauritz Kop Advises Stanford FSI Students on Quantum Policy and Cybersecurity Project

Mauritz Kop advised a Stanford student research team on their quantum policy and cybersecurity project—part of Technology, Innovation, and Great Power Competition, the policy-entrepreneurship course at the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation, Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI).

Startup methods, statecraft problems

In Steve Blank's experiential course, student teams take real-world challenges from U.S. and partner-nation policymakers and work them like founders: rapid discovery, agile iteration, actionable insights for real decision-makers. One team—led by Hannah Nabavi, a graduate student in Aeronautics and Astronautics and Threshold Venture Fellow—chose the quantum frontier: quantum computing and post-quantum cybersecurity as a great-power-competition problem.

From Q-Day to the three pillars

Kop's advisory session gave the team its working map: the Q-Day threat and why harvest-now, decrypt-later collection makes it urgent today; post-quantum cryptography mitigation in finance; the three quantum pillars of computing, sensing, and networking; and the investment ecosystem—startups, ventures, and the discipline that separates substance from hype. It is the same teaching thread he brings to quantum computing and law students at Fordham.

The next quantum policy generation

When aerospace engineers choose post-quantum security as their policy challenge, the signal—in Kop's reading—is clear: quantum literacy is becoming core strategic literacy. The team set out to share its final paper at the end of the fall 2025 quarter—exactly the kind of student work the quantum governance field needs more of.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Teaching, UniversityMauritz KopMauritz Kop, Stanford University, Quantum Governance, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Stanford RQT, Freeman Spogli Institute, Gordian Knot Center, Great Power Competition, Steve Blank, Stanford Students