Berichten met de tag Standards

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 Quentir28 mei 2026Mauritz 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

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 Kop26 mei 2026Mauritz 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

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 Kop5 mei 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Standards, Policy, IDC, PeerScape, Post-Quantum Cryptography, QT-QMS, Quantum Computing, Risk Management

Quantum Computing and Competition Law: Gasser, Aboy et al. Submit Comments to Italian Competition Authority AGCM

Seven scholars—Urs Gasser, Mateo Aboy, I. Glenn Cohen, Mauritz Kop, Fabienne Marco, Timo Minssen, and John Palfrey—have submitted comments to the Italian Competition Authority's public consultation on quantum computing — an early move by a major competition regulator into a market still being formed.

Five dimensions, one variable

The AGCM asked about market structure, competitive dynamics, intellectual property, consolidation, and strategic dependencies. The submission's answer: all five run through interoperability—who sets the interfaces, who governs the benchmarks, and whether early cloud-access arrangements harden into path dependence before conventional indicators of dominance ever appear. Quantum architectures are incommensurable, not merely incompatible, which makes the usual platform-market playbook an imperfect guide and benchmark governance a first-order competition issue.

Measured on the evidence

The scholars are deliberately unalarmist: the submission reports that current patent data shows no anticommons, with concentration below mature classical-computing markets. The genuine risk is narrower—rights over interface-critical elements becoming unavoidable as standards crystallize, and three compounding forms of lock-in (technical, administrative, organizational) closing a market that still looks open on paper. The team's years of groundwork, from Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation to the patent-landscape studies, supplies the empirical base.

Process before prescription

The recommendations are staged: monitoring and transparency first, disclosure-oriented safeguards where dependencies form, intervention only on demonstrated exclusion—plus competition safeguards built directly into quantum standard-setting, from ISO/IEC JTC 3 to the emerging EU Quantum Act. In a market still being formed, the scholars argue, the right question is not what the market should look like, but whether the processes shaping it remain open, revisable, and not prematurely foreclosed.

Meer lezen

Quantum Computing, Competition Law, GovernanceHenry Quentir20 april 2026Mauritz Kop, Urs Gasser, I. Glenn Cohen, Quantum Governance, Intellectual Property, Standards, AGCM, Competition Law, Antitrust, Interoperability, EU Quantum Act, Mateo Aboy, Timo Minssen, John Palfrey

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 Quentir19 maart 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Regulation, Stanford RQT, Quantum Technology, Standards, StateScoop, Ohio House Bill 650, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, State Legislation

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 Quentir12 februari 2026Mauritz 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

CIGI Publishes Global Quantum Policy Brief by Mauritz Kop and Tracey Forrest

Waterloo, 5 February 2026—The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) has published a new policy brief, Global Quantum Governance: From Principles to Practice, authored by Mauritz Kop and Tracey Forrest. The brief is written for policy makers, regulators, standards bodies, and industry actors facing a practical transition: quantum technologies are moving from laboratory milestones toward deployment pathways where governance choices—especially around cybersecurity and cross-border infrastructure—become difficult to reverse.

Download the Policy Brief here: https://www.cigionline.org/documents/3746/PB_No.222_Kop_and_Forrest.pdf

Why this brief on quantum governance, and why now

The brief’s central timing claim is that near-term milestones—particularly post-quantum cryptography (PQC) migration and quantum networking—create a governance tipping point. After that point, certain security and societal harms may be costly (or impossible) to remediate. In the brief’s framing, PQC migration is not merely an engineering update; it is a “temporal rights and resilience” imperative because present-day decisions about crypto-agility, key life-cycle management, and data minimization determine whether sensitive data remains protected against future adversaries.

This urgency is paired with a structural diagnosis: national initiatives—including the EU’s proposed Quantum Act—are important, but insufficient on their own given quantum’s dual-use characteristics, global supply chains, and asymmetric capabilities across states and firms. The authors argue for a governance architecture that is “standards-first” and internationally coordinated, capable of sustaining what they call “security-sufficient openness,” and overseen by an International Quantum Agency.

The brief’s recommendations in practical terms

The brief concludes with a multi-pronged path “from principles to practice,” emphasizing four implementable priorities:

Strengthen foundations through standards and PQC execution: align cryptographic profiles across sectors; update procurement so crypto-agility, key life-cycle management, and “harvest now, decrypt later” mitigation become baseline requirements; and adopt “cryptographic resilience” via agile standards, testing, and incident playbooks.
Harmonize among allies: coordinate export controls, investment screening, and supply-chain security via mechanisms such as a proposed G7 Quantum Technology Point of Contact Group and narrowly scoped license-exception approaches in Five Eyes/AUKUS-style arrangements, while avoiding poorly designed measures that impose high compliance costs and chill benign collaboration.
Incentivize global collaboration and capacity building: federate national quantum clouds, SDG-oriented demonstrators, and regional test networks under common governance rules; and consider, longer-term, a “CERN for Quantum” that provides shared access anchored in transparency and equitable access, including for Global South partners.
Institutionalize foresight and bounded algorithmic regulation: resource international foresight capacities—within an IQA-type body or linked observatories—to update risk scenarios and stress-test legal frameworks, while experimenting with limited, well-governed AI-assisted monitoring and red-teaming to inform accountable human decision makers.

Takeaway for AIRecht’s readership

For legal and policy practitioners, the brief’s message is that quantum governance is entering a phase where operational artifacts—standards, benchmarks, procurement baselines, and interoperability profiles—will increasingly determine real-world rights, liabilities, and security outcomes. PQC migration and quantum networking are treated as the near-term proving ground for whether democracies can coordinate “security-sufficient openness” at scale.

For innovators and investors, the brief underscores that governance is not a brake on quantum progress but a design constraint that—if addressed early—can preserve global interoperability, reduce fragmentation, and support responsible diffusion of quantum capability without deepening geopolitical divides.

Meer lezen

Responsible Peer Review at Scholarly Journals: Guiding Manuscripts to Their Best Form

Behind every published paper stands an unnamed reader who helped make it publishable. That reader is a peer reviewer—unpaid, anonymous, and usually invisible. Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, has done that work across a strikingly broad set of fields, and this essay treats peer review as a craft worth describing: how to do it well, and where he does it.

Steward, not gatekeeper

Everything follows from how a reviewer understands the role. Read as a turnstile, review collapses into fault-finding; read as care for the scholarly record, it turns into the question of what a paper needs to reach its strongest form. Saying no remains part of the job when nothing can rescue a manuscript—but repair, not rejection, is the starting assumption. The method that supports this is unglamorous: read once generously to grasp intent, again critically to test claim against method and evidence, and a third time as the non-specialist who has to follow it. What the author then receives should be a guide, not a grade—precise, proportionate, and respectful of the labor behind the work.

What interdisciplinary review demands

The journals map the range of the practice—npj Digital Medicine, Ethics and Information Technology, Minds and Machines (Springer Nature), NanoEthics (Springer Nature), Intellectual Property Quarterly (Thomson Reuters), the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford University Press), and Quantum Science and Technology (IOP Publishing). Evidence means something different in each: a trial result, a philosophical argument, a reading of statute, and a physics experiment are not validated the same way, so the reviewer adapts to the discipline at hand. Physics makes the point sharp. A quantum protocol that assumes an unknown state can be copied violates the no-cloning theorem; a scheme that ignores decoherence, or forgets that measurement perturbs the very state it reads, has not survived contact with the physics—a rigor that also animates Kop's Quantum-ELSPI work on the legal and ethical implications of quantum technology.

Confidentiality and recognition

You will find no war stories here about particular submissions, and the silence is deliberate. Confidentiality is not an accessory to peer review but its precondition: only because reviewers say nothing can authors hand unfinished work to a stranger. Such discretion makes the labor hard to see, and harder to honor. The exception came in 2022, when IOP Publishing granted Kop its Trusted Reviewer Certification, a competency-based recognition of reviewers who demonstrate a high standard of review—a mark of rigor and usefulness rather than sheer output. Practiced this way, peer review is less a barrier than the quiet mechanism that keeps the scholarly record trustworthy.

Meer lezen

Academics, Research, ScholarshipMauritz Kop25 december 2025Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Ethics, Standards, Peer Review, Scholarly Publishing, Research Integrity, IOP Trusted Reviewer, Quantum Science and Technology, Interdisciplinary Research

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 Kop19 december 2025Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Standards, Post-Quantum Cryptography, GARP, Risk Management, Financial Services, Crypto-Agility, Quantum Technology Impact Assessment

War on the Rocks Publishes "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age"

Washington DC, Nov. 6, 2025—War on the Rocks has published a major new commentary by Stanford RQT’s Mauritz Kop, titled “A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age.” The article translates his broader research on quantum governance into a concrete, operational blueprint for post-quantum cryptography (PQC) migration across the United States and its allies.

Appearing in a venue read closely by practitioners in defence, intelligence, and foreign policy, the piece draws a deliberate conceptual line from the World War II codebreaking effort at Bletchley Park to today’s challenge of securing democratic communications. It argues that Bletchley Park was more than a geographic location; it was a method—an integrated system of science, engineering, operations, and alliance management. Kop contends that a similar methodology is required now to protect national security systems against cryptanalytically relevant quantum computers.

The Enigma Machine utilized a complex series of electromechanical rotors to produce a polyalphabetic substitution cipher, creating an encryption standard that was widely deemed unbreakable by contemporary adversaries. Defeating this system required the Allies to operationalize abstract mathematics into industrial capability, a feat that fundamentally altered the trajectory of the war.

The article situates PQC migration not as a narrow information technology upgrade, but as a core tenet of United States and allied quantum-AI grand strategy. It highlights how flagship programmes such as the United States Department of Defense’s Replicator initiative must be made “quantum-ready” to avoid becoming silently obsolete once large-scale quantum computers arrive.

Professor Kop extends his gratitude to War on the Rocks editor Lieutenant Colonel Walter ‘Rick’ Landgraf, PhD, whose precise editorial work helped sharpen the argument and tailor it to the publication’s strategic readership.

The Core Argument: A Bletchley Method for Post-Quantum Cryptography Migration

The essay begins from a straightforward technical premise. Once fault-tolerant quantum computers exist, Shor’s algorithm will efficiently factor large integers and compute discrete logarithms, thereby breaking the public-key cryptosystems—such as RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography—on which secure communication currently relies. In parallel, Grover’s algorithm will provide a quadratic speed-up in brute-force search, effectively halving the security margin of many symmetric-key schemes.

In this setting, the world’s cryptographic infrastructure cannot simply be patched at the margins. It requires a comprehensive, carefully managed transition to new, quantum-resistant algorithms.

Kop proposes that the United States and its allies apply a “Bletchley method” to this problem by tightly linking:

Domestic execution of PQC migration, and
An allied, standards-based certification compact that prevents fragmentation.

Defensively, this means post-quantum cryptography by default and certified interoperability across critical systems. Politically, it means that Washington earns the right to lead abroad by delivering verifiable results at home.

The framework is organised around two distinct but mutually reinforcing tracks:

Track One – “Ultra at Home”: rigorous domestic execution, and
Track Two – “Allied Codebook Abroad”: international architecture designed to avoid a “quantum splinternet.”

Meer lezen

Mauritz Kop Teaches Quantum Governance at the United States Air Force Academy

Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, returned to the United States Air Force Academy—where he serves as guest professor—to teach cadets a class titled Responsible Quantum Technology: Establishing a Legal-Ethical Framework. The session began with the physics and moved to the geostrategic, legal, and ethical architecture the field will need as it matures, addressing two questions the cadets had prepared: why govern quantum before it is mature, and what framework best balances innovation against risk.

From the mechanics to the law

The lecture grounded its policy argument in the physics of the second quantum revolution. Where classical systems encode definite bits, quantum systems exploit superposition, entanglement, and tunneling to unlock new categories of capability across computing, sensing, simulation, and networking—from drug discovery and novel materials to jam-resistant navigation and physically grounded secure communications. The same properties that make the technology powerful, Kop argued, strain a legal order built on certainty, locality, and linear causality, which is why quantum governance calls for a tailored, sui generis approach rather than a retrofit of existing rules. The themes extend the line of work Kop set out in Establishing a Legal-Ethical Framework for Quantum Technology.

Why govern before maturity

On the cadets' first question, Kop drew on the Collingridge dilemma—control is easiest early, when knowledge is limited but options remain open—and on his metaphor of a quantum event horizon, a threshold beyond which technological lock-in makes the path far harder to redirect. Acting while the technology is still malleable, he argued, is not a brake on innovation but a precondition for steering it toward democratic values, public trust, and the legal certainty that long-horizon research and investment depend on.

A two-pillar framework

To the second question, Kop offered an integrated two-pillar response: agile, risk-based regulation that tiers obligations by an application's risk, paired with a strategic industrial and security policy that builds national capacity—funding across the lab-to-market pipeline, supply-chain resilience for critical minerals and components, talent development, and shared research infrastructure. This is the operational form of the Responsible Quantum Technology framework, organized under the SEA principles of safeguarding, engaging, and advancing the technology, and aimed at steering innovation rather than slowing it.

Dual-use and deterrence

For future Air Force and Space Force officers, the dual-use character of quantum technology was the connecting thread. The most acute near-term concern is the cryptographic threat—"Q-Day" and "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later"—which makes the migration to post-quantum cryptography a present-tense security task. Set against great-power competition, Kop's prescription is deliberate stewardship: embedding democratic values into standards early, protecting research from state-sponsored theft, and cooperating with allies, themes he has also brought to venues including the Hoover Institution. The class closed on the conviction that technology's trajectory is a matter of choice, and that engaging its technical, strategic, legal, and ethical dimensions is a core professional responsibility for the officers who will shape these systems.

Meer lezen

Teaching, Quantum Technology, GovernanceMauritz Kop23 oktober 2025Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, National Security, Governance, Policy, Quantum-ELSPI, Standards, US Air Force Academy, Teaching, Dual-Use, Post-Quantum Cryptography

Mauritz Kop Awarded Senior Fellowship at Leading G7 Think Tank CIGI Waterloo

Mauritz Kop, founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) and a guest professor at the US Air Force Academy (USAFA), has been appointed a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), a leading Canadian G7 think tank with a global reputation for impactful research and policy advice. This fellowship marks a significant new chapter in Professor Kop's work, allowing for a deeper dive into the intricate and rapidly evolving nexus of quantum technology, artificial intelligence (AI), intellectual property (IP) law, competition policy, and national security. The initial project will focus on developing a comprehensive roadmap for navigating this complex landscape, building on previous engagement with CIGI and long-standing academic and professional connections with Canada.

Mauritz Kop Appointed Senior Fellow at CIGI: A New Chapter in Quantum Governance and Global Security

This CIGI senior fellow appointment is not just a personal honour, but a testament to the growing global recognition of the urgent need for innovative governance models to steer the development of powerful dual-use technologies towards beneficial outcomes for humanity. The challenges are immense, but so are the opportunities. In a world grappling with geopolitical instability and the disruptive potential of emerging technologies, CIGI’s mission to build bridges from knowledge to power has never been more critical. Kop is thrilled to contribute to this mission and to collaborate with CIGI’s distinguished team of experts.

Building on a Foundation: The Dual-Use Project and Previous Engagements

Professor Kop's journey with CIGI began prior to this fellowship, with a seminar delivered on the governance of dual-use quantum technologies. That lecture, titled “Responsible Quantum AI Governance: From Ethical Principles to Global Frameworks,” set the stage for the work he is about to undertake. In that presentation, he argued that we are approaching a “Quantum Event Horizon”—a critical juncture beyond which our ability to shape the trajectory of advanced quantum and AI systems may be irrevocably lost. The core of Kop's argument was that traditional governance models and diplomatic efforts are insufficient to address the systemic challenges posed by a global, high-stakes race for quantum supremacy.

The seminar explored the necessity of a multi-layered governance strategy. This includes not only the development of robust international legal frameworks and oversight bodies, drawing inspiration from nuclear non-proliferation treaties, but also the integration of “Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI” to hardwire universal values into the technology itself. This dual approach, grounded in the principles of responsible innovation, is essential to mitigate the risks of misuse by state and non-state actors, and to ensure that these technologies serve to enhance, rather than undermine, democratic societies.

The positive reception to these ideas and the stimulating discussions that followed with the CIGI community laid the groundwork for this senior fellowship. It became clear that there was a shared understanding of the stakes involved and a common commitment to forging a path towards a safe and equitable quantum future. This fellowship provides the ideal platform to transition from articulating these principles to developing concrete, actionable policy recommendations.

A New Frontier: IP, Competition Law, Quantum, Dual-Use, and National Security

Professor Kop's first project as a CIGI Senior Fellow will be an in-depth analysis of the critical nexus between quantum technology, AI, IP policy, and national security strategy. The convergence of quantum and AI capabilities presents unprecedented challenges for global innovation and strategic stability, most notably the looming threat of “Q-Day,” when a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break most of the public-key cryptography that underpins our digital world.

This project will draw lessons from historical precedents, particularly the governance of nuclear technology, to inform the development of novel frameworks for quantum governance. A key component of the research will be a comparative analysis of quantum IP strategies across the dominant tech blocs, examining how different approaches to patents, trade secrets, and state secrets are shaping the global quantum race.

Meer lezen

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

The first intergovernmental quantum standard

A visible lineage, not a formal citation

Why anticipation is the right posture

What comes next

The entanglement edge, soberly measured

Where Kop's briefing landed

What planners should take away

A buyer-side discipline, not a research curiosity

The two-pronged risk

Governance engineered as an operating system

Part of a widening practitioner record

Five dimensions, one variable

Measured on the evidence

Process before prescription

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

Three messages from the interview

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

Deterrence by denial for democratic resilience

The LSI test

A coalition playbook against a "Silicon Curtain"

Why this brief on quantum governance, and why now

The brief’s recommendations in practical terms

Takeaway for AIRecht’s readership

Steward, not gatekeeper

What interdisciplinary review demands

Confidentiality and recognition

Q-Day is the wrong question

Five must-haves for a quantum governance strategy

From the trading floor to the boardroom

The Core Argument: A Bletchley Method for Post-Quantum Cryptography Migration

From the mechanics to the law

Why govern before maturity

A two-pillar framework

Dual-use and deterrence

Mauritz Kop Appointed Senior Fellow at CIGI: A New Chapter in Quantum Governance and Global Security

Building on a Foundation: The Dual-Use Project and Previous Engagements

A New Frontier: IP, Competition Law, Quantum, Dual-Use, and National Security

Juridische diensten en projecten in Nederland en daarbuiten