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 in Quantum Technology
Statute-Led Quantum Governance: A Legislative Blueprint for the United States
Statute-Led Quantum Governance: A Legislative Blueprint for the United States

On June 22, 2026, the White House signed two quantum executive orders in one afternoon: a national push toward a science-enabling quantum computer, and an accelerated federal migration to post-quantum cryptography. The orders are far-reaching and structurally fragile. A later administration can amend or revoke executive action far more easily than Congress can repeal a statute, and executive action cannot appropriate a dollar or settle the values by which quantum technology will be governed. That work belongs to Congress.

What Congress has in motion in 2026 and why it is still revocable

The 2026 federal landscape is busy and brittle. The National Quantum Initiative reauthorization is moving through both chambers after its predecessor died with the 118th Congress, a $2.5 billion Department of Energy quantum bill waits alongside it, and export controls on quantum computing arrived by interim rule in 2024. Every instrument is revocable, expirable, or reversible. The United States has quantum legislation in the National Quantum Initiative Act and still lacks a comprehensive quantum statute. Governing by summit communiqué instead of binding rule is a wider habit, as our analysis From Kananaskis to Évian shows for the G7.

Why statutes serve foundational technologies better than accreted guidance

Foundational technologies mature on timescales longer than administrations, cut across agency jurisdictions, and allocate power in ways that deserve democratic sanction. The artificial intelligence precedent is cautionary: congressional silence produced a state patchwork in which Colorado's pioneering AI statute was rewritten before it ever took effect. A quantum statute with values-based guardrails, from risk tiers to trials pathways and access equity, is innovation policy in its own right. It gives investors, allies, and the public reasons to trust the ecosystem being built.

The eight-part blueprint for a United States quantum act

The full analysis lays out an eight-part legislative blueprint: capability-based definitions that survive hardware generations, risk-tiered obligations, statutory post-quantum cryptography deadlines, a standing standards mandate for NIST, regulatory sandboxes, calibrated research security, national quantum-advantage missions with a software institute, and workforce plus allied coordination. It merges the reauthorization bills, the DOE act, and the executive orders into one coherent act of Congress.

Europe's Quantum Act proposal is expected in 2026, and the EU has made statute-led governance its brand, from the AI Act's risk tiers to the Quantum Europe Strategy. America's answer should be transatlantic interoperability: shared risk concepts, mutual recognition, aligned export regimes. The reauthorization vehicles moving through both chambers this session give Congress a rare moment when legislative ambition costs little more than drafting. Read the full analysis for the blueprint and the case for using that moment.

Meer lezen
Governance, Quantum Technology, PolicyMauritz Kopquantum governance, US quantum legislation, EU Quantum Act, post-quantum cryptography, standards
Quantum and the End of Privacy: Harvest-Now-Decrypt-Later, Quantum Sensing, and Forward-Dated Data Protection Law
Quantum and the End of Privacy: Harvest-Now-Decrypt-Later, Quantum Sensing, and Forward-Dated Data Protection Law

Every privacy regime ever written shares one silent assumption: protection assessed today stays valid tomorrow. Quantum technology breaks that assumption twice, once by putting an expiry date on modern encryption and once by making the physically hidden measurable. This analysis maps both fronts and asks what a forward-dated privacy law would look like.

Two quantum clocks: decryption deadlines and quantum sensors

The first clock is cryptanalytic. Adversaries are recording encrypted traffic now, betting that future quantum computers will unlock it. This harvest-now-decrypt-later strategy has pushed NIST, the NSA, and the European Commission to set migration deadlines running from 2026 to 2035. Any data that must stay confidential longer than the migration takes is already exposed to that risk; if the ciphertext has been retained, only the disclosure date is open.

The second clock is metrological. Quantum gravimeters have located tunnels under real roads, and wearable magnetometers read the brain's faint magnetic signals while the wearer moves freely. This is quantum sensing: privacy intrusion without interception, where nothing is hacked because something is measured, and the physical obscurity that home and surveillance law rely on is gone before any legal safeguard applies.

How fragments collected over decades become one retroactive picture

Between these clocks sits an uncomfortable synthesis. Fragments harvested or measured across decades can be assembled retroactively by whoever gains the quantum edge first: the mosaic theory of intelligence law, extended into the future tense. The asymmetry between early quantum haves and have-nots becomes a fundamental-rights question, first examined when Mauritz Kop advised Yale Law School's Lowenstein Human Rights Project on quantum technology.

What forward-dated data protection law would change in practice

The governance proposal is concrete. Compare every dataset's sensitivity lifetime against its cryptosystem's security lifetime, and treat any mismatch as a present-day compliance gap under the GDPR's state-of-the-art standard. Calibrate post-quantum migration duties to data horizons, treat long-retained encrypted archives as liabilities, and regulate high-resolution remote sensing as the search it functionally is.

Chile's constitutional neurorights, UNESCO's 2025 neurotechnology recommendation, and the EU's coordinated post-quantum roadmap show that the pieces already exist. What is missing is the temporal frame that connects quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and privacy into a single question for regulators: protected until when, and against whom? The full analysis sets out the timelines, the case law, and the policy blueprint.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Grondrechten, EthicsMauritz Kopquantum privacy, harvest now decrypt later, quantum sensing, GDPR, fundamental rights
The Quantum Internet: Teleportation, Entanglement, QKD, PQC and Hybrid Security Strategies
The Quantum Internet: Teleportation, Entanglement, QKD, PQC and Hybrid Security Strategies

The quantum internet will do something classical networks cannot do at all: distribute entanglement between cities, teleport quantum states, and detect interception at the protocol level. This explainer walks the whole stack for a legal and policy audience: teleportation, quantum key distribution over fiber and satellite, the NIST post-quantum standards, and the hybrid strategies that boards and ministries must adopt long before the network itself matures. The physics is subtle. The policy consequences are concrete and come with deadlines.

What Delft, The Hague and the Micius satellite have already demonstrated

The milestones are no longer thought experiments. In 2024, researchers entangled quantum processors in Delft and The Hague over 25 kilometers of ordinary underground telecom fiber, a genuine metropolitan quantum network link. China's Micius satellite has distributed quantum keys between ground stations 7,600 kilometers apart, securing a videoconference between Beijing and Vienna. The strategic significance of who builds and controls these networks is examined in the CNAS Entanglement Edge quantum networking report. Teleportation itself is routinely misread: it transfers a quantum state using entanglement plus a classical signal. No matter moves, nothing exceeds light speed, and the original state is destroyed.

Why the post-quantum deadlines exist years before the hardware

The urgency is cryptographic. A future quantum computer running Shor's algorithm breaks RSA and elliptic-curve encryption, and adversaries are already recording traffic to decrypt later, the harvest-now-decrypt-later attack. NIST answered in August 2024 with its first finalized post-quantum standards (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) and selected the code-based HQC in March 2025 as a future backup. Migration timelines from U.S. and European authorities cluster around 2030 to 2035. For long-lived data, interception already creates the confidentiality risk, because retained ciphertext may become readable later.

How layered security replaces the search for a single quantum fix

The central argument is architectural. Security in the quantum transition comes from hybrid strategies: classical plus post-quantum key establishment, AES-256 payload encryption, QKD only on high-value links where its trusted-node risks are consciously accepted, and crypto-agility as the governing design principle. The analysis closes with a concrete sequence for enterprises and governments: build the cryptographic inventory, triage data by confidentiality lifetime, write post-quantum requirements into procurement and audits, and run quantum-network pilots with candid trusted-node risk assessments. Read on to see how physics, standards, and statecraft interlock, and why the migration calendar is an obligation of today.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Quantum Computing, GovernanceMauritz Kopquantum internet, QKD, post-quantum cryptography, AES-256, quantum teleportation, hybrid security
Quantum Superposition, Entanglement, and Tunneling Explained for Law and Policy
Quantum Superposition, Entanglement, and Tunneling Explained for Law and Policy

Every debate about quantum law eventually runs into three words of physics: superposition, entanglement, and tunneling. Together they explain why quantum computing will break today's public-key encryption, why properly implemented quantum communication can reveal interception through its error statistics, and why quantum sensors raise privacy questions long before large quantum computers exist. This explainer unpacks all three for a legal and policy audience, accurately and without the folklore.

Which recent experiments turned quantum theory into engineering fact

The physics is a century old, and the decisive experiments are recent. A 16-microgram sapphire crystal has been placed in a superposition of two vibration states at once, the heaviest "Schrödinger cat" prepared to date. Loophole-free Bell tests in 2015 observed correlations between entangled particles that no local hidden-variable model can reproduce, work crowned by the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. And in 2020, physicists first clocked how long ultracold atoms spend inside a barrier while tunneling through it: about 0.6 milliseconds, for a passage classical physics forbids outright. Quantum mechanics is now an engineering substrate, and the engineering keeps pushing the quantum-classical boundary outward year by year.

What each phenomenon means for encryption, networks, and sensing law

Each phenomenon carries its own governance consequence. Superposition, interference, and phase estimation together make Shor's algorithm work, and with it the harvest-now-decrypt-later threat: encrypted data copied today can be unlocked by a future quantum machine, which is why cryptographic migration deadlines exist now. Entanglement is the resource behind quantum networks and entanglement-based key distribution, and a future quantum internet whose infrastructure crosses borders will raise jurisdiction and interception questions. Tunneling sits inside the hardware itself, from flash memory to the Josephson junctions of superconducting processors, and inside a generation of quantum sensors with real dual-use potential. The stakes of getting this wrong were spelled out bluntly in Foreign Policy's warning about quantum computing.

Why lawmakers still have lead time on quantum technology

The essay's core claim is simple: these phenomena are the policy argument. Where AI governance had to be retrofitted onto deployed systems, quantum technology still offers lawmakers lead time. The full analysis walks through each phenomenon with the recent experimental evidence in hand, then lands the legal consequence: superposition sets the cryptographic migration clock, entanglement sets the network and jurisdiction agenda, and tunneling sets the hardware and sensing agenda. Read on to see how policymakers can use that lead time on cryptographic migration, network governance, hardware controls, and sensing risks.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Quantum Computing, AcademicsMauritz Kopquantum mechanics, superposition, entanglement, tunneling, quantum law, quantum governance
Harvard–Smithsonian's NASA Astrophysics Data System Indexes the Quantum Nexus Article by Mauritz Kop
Harvard–Smithsonian's NASA Astrophysics Data System Indexes the Quantum Nexus Article by Mauritz Kop

Which record Harvard–Smithsonian created for the Nexus Article, and what a bibcode changes

The NASA Astrophysics Data System, run by the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian under a NASA grant, now holds a permanent record for the book-length article The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security: Deterrence by Denial for Democratic Resilience: An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons, written by Mauritz Kop (Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology). The article examines how democratic nations can protect critical quantum infrastructure through a middle path between total closure and open laissez-faire. The record carries the bibcode 2026arXiv260215051K, reproduces the full abstract, names Kop as sole author, dates the work to February 2026, and files the Article under Physics and Society, History and Philosophy of Physics, and Quantum Physics. The document type is recorded as an eprint, the accurate description of a work posted as a preprint on 11 February 2026.

Why a physics catalogue matters for an Article about export controls, and what Kop advises the Pentagon on

Quantum governance scholarship is written by legal and policy scholars and read by physicists, engineers and procurement officers, who search from the other side of the divide. The LSI test — least-trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving — was built to be applied by the people who draft export-control lists and standards documents, and the Article's claim that the United States and its allies should pursue security-sufficient openness now surfaces in the same results as the technical literature on the capabilities it governs. The index already held nine other works by the same author, among them Nature Physics, Science, Quantum Science and Technology, EPJ Quantum Technology and Physics World. Since August 2026 Kop has served as Quantum Strategy Advisor to the Pentagon, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, invited to advise on Quantum First across dual-use technology, industrial policy, national and economic security, governance and grand strategy. The role is advisory, carries no employment relationship, and implies no institutional endorsement. The paradigms it carries forward are the Stanford RQT ones: the Ten Principles, the War on the Rocks migration discipline, and the LSI test itself.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, GeopoliticsMauritz KopMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, National Security, Stanford RQT, NASA ADS, Harvard-Smithsonian, LSI Test, Quantum Industrial Commons, arXiv, Bibliometrics, Pentagon, Intellectual Property
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
Quantum Law Goes Mainstream: Our Stanford RQT Scholarship in Forbes, MIT Sloan, Yahoo Finance, Foreign Policy, The Quantum Insider, and Fortune
Quantum Law Goes Mainstream: Our Stanford RQT Scholarship in Forbes, MIT Sloan, Yahoo Finance, Foreign Policy, The Quantum Insider, and Fortune

At the frontier of quantum & AI — from breakthrough to strategy. For the boards, general counsel, and founders deciding the quantum decade: a guide to the responsible-quantum-technology research behind the headlines — from the foundational Berkeley paper on quantum IP to a Nature Physics framework, a Harvard medical-ethics doctrine, and a Los Alamos supply-chain dashboard — and where the world's leading outlets picked it up.

The Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology

Research from the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (2023–2025), founded and directed by Mauritz Kop — also founder of AIRecht and Quentir — has been featured, cited, or authored across Foreign Policy, Fortune, Yahoo Finance, MIT Sloan Management Review, the Forbes Technology Council, and, three separate times, The Quantum Insider. Published at the summit of the scientific literature — Science and Nature Physics — and built on the quantum-IP trilogy that runs from the Berkeley Technology Law Journal through the Max Planck patent-landscape study to Oxford's market-power analysis.

Quantum Governance, IP, and Strategy

Quantum is now a governance, IP, and strategy problem as much as a physics problem — and it is arriving now, in algorithms, devices, and materials. This piece maps the coverage, the scholarship behind it, and what it means for your organisation: from the 10 Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation and the SEA framework to quantum patent strategy, post-quantum cryptography migration, and dual-use compliance.

The fastest way to see where you stand is not a meeting — it is your own paperwork: run your AI and ICT contracts through the 24/7 self-service AIRecht Contract Scanner and get a structured report in minutes.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, AcademicsMauritz Kopresponsible quantum technology, quantum law, quantum intellectual property, Stanford RQT, media
Industriepolitiek en quantumrecht: de Amerikaanse decreten van juni 2026
Industriepolitiek en quantumrecht: de Amerikaanse decreten van juni 2026

Op 22 juni 2026 tekende het Witte Huis twee presidentiële besluiten die samen één beweging vormen: de Verenigde Staten verheffen quantumtechnologie tot instrument van industriepolitiek. Het eerste besluit lanceert een nationaal programma voor de eerste quantumcomputer die het tijdperk van quantum-gedreven wetenschappelijke ontdekking moet inluiden; het tweede legt de federale overheid harde deadlines op voor de migratie naar post-quantumcryptografie. Wie de twee naast elkaar legt, ziet geen losse beleidsdaden maar een strategie — en die strategie heeft juridische gevolgen tot ver buiten de Amerikaanse grens.

Wat er verandert voor exportcontrole en investeringstoetsing

Zodra een staat een opkomende technologie tot industriepolitiek verheft, bewegen exportcontrole, onderzoeksbeveiliging en buitenlandse-investeringstoetsing mee. Quantum belandt daarmee in dezelfde categorie als halfgeleiders: een dual-use-technologie waar nationale veiligheid en economische zekerheid samenvallen. Voor Europese onderzoekers en bedrijven die met Amerikaanse partners samenwerken, verandert de context waarin afspraken over intellectuele eigendom, data en personeel tot stand komen — ook zonder dat er één regel Europees recht wijzigt.

De cryptografische klok tikt tot 2030

Het tweede besluit zet de scherpste juridische klok: federale high-value assets en high-impact-systemen moeten uiterlijk eind 2030 over op door NIST goedgekeurde post-quantumcryptografie. De achterliggende dreiging is harvest-now-decrypt-later: data die vandaag wordt onderschept, is straks alsnog leesbaar. Voor organisaties met langlevende vertrouwelijke gegevens verschuift de migratie daarmee van ICT-project naar zorgplichtvraag — een verschuiving die via artikel 32 AVG ook de Europese praktijk raakt. Hoe u die inventarisatie bestuurlijk aanpakt, leest u in onze analyse van de cryptografische inventaris als bestuursdossier.

Een transatlantische maatstaf in plaats van twee reflexen

De Verenigde Staten sturen via missiegericht overheidsgeld en beveiligingsmaatregelen; de Europese Unie reguleert kunstmatige intelligentie (artificiële intelligentie) en straks mogelijk ook quantum via horizontale kaders die innovatie en grondrechten in balans houden. Beide logica's hebben een gedeelde maatstaf nodig. In deze analyse leggen we uit waarom de LSI-toets — het smalste effectieve, innovatiebehoudende instrument — die maatstaf kan zijn, wat de Amerikaanse termijnen betekenen voor Nederlandse en Europese organisaties, en waarom wie nu begint met exportclassificatie en een cryptografisch migratieplan straks minder last heeft van een deadline die via een ander rechtsstelsel toch op de mat valt.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopQuantumtechnologie, Exportcontrole, Post-quantumcryptografie, Industriepolitiek
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
Call for Applications: CIGI Quantum Nexus Emerging Scholars Program for Canadian Strategic Advantage
Call for Applications: CIGI Quantum Nexus Emerging Scholars Program for Canadian Strategic Advantage

The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) is accepting applications for a competitive emerging scholars program attached to The Quantum Nexus: A Framework for Canadian Strategic Advantage in a Contested Domain, a research project supported by the Department of National Defence's MINDS program and led by CIGI Senior Fellow Mauritz Kop. The deadline is July 15, 2026.

A mentorship cohort with a mission

Four to six emerging scholars from across Canada—undergraduates through post-docs, from any discipline—join a virtual program from September to December 2026. The format is deliberately personal: a one-on-one mentorship session with the Principal Investigator, an online international expert workshop in October, and a group masterclass on emerging-technology governance and publication development in November. No prior quantum expertise is required, and applications from equity-deserving groups are strongly encouraged; the program is built on the conviction that good governance of emerging technologies needs many kinds of minds. It is the same conviction that brought a Canadian quantum governance delegation to Stanford to prepare Canada's G7 presidency.

From analytical note to CIGI report

This is a publication program, not a lecture series. Every participant develops a 1,200–1,500-word analytical note on an assigned subtopic within one of six themes—spanning intellectual property and export controls, post-quantum cryptography migration, critical materials and supply chains, quantum-AI convergence, standards and allied interoperability, and the application of the LSI test (least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving) to a real case. The notes are contributed to the project's final CIGI report as a dedicated Emerging Scholars annex—a substantive contribution at the start of a research career.

Dates and deadlines

Applying takes one PDF: a 300–500-word expression of interest naming the theme you want to work on, a CV, and one reference letter, sent to programs@cigionline.org (subject line: Emerging Scholars Application: DND MINDS Project). Applications close July 15, 2026; acceptances follow in mid-August; the program runs September through December. For emerging scholars who want to help shape how the quantum age is governed, this is the opening.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, CIGI, ScholarshipHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, CIGI, Quantum Governance, National Security, Intellectual Property, Geopolitics, Emerging Scholars, Quantum Nexus, DND MINDS, Canada, LSI Test
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