Ethics of Quantum Computing: An Outline

Delft University of Technology
Ethics of Quantum Computing

an Outline
Possati, Luca M.
DOI
10.1007/s13347-023-00651-6
Publication date
2023
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Philosophy and Technology
Citation (APA)
Possati, L. M. (2023). Ethics of Quantum Computing: an Outline. Philosophy and Technology, 36(3), Article
48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00651-6
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.
Philosophy & Technology (2023) 36:48
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00651-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ethics of Quantum Computing: an Outline
Luca M. Possati1
Received: 4 August 2022 / Accepted: 20 June 2023

© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
This paper intends to contribute to the emerging literature on the ethical problems
posed by quantum computing and quantum technologies in general. The key ethical
questions are as follows: Does quantum computing pose new ethical problems, or
are those raised by quantum computing just a different version of the same ethical
problems raised by other technologies, such as nanotechnologies, nuclear plants, or
cloud computing? In other words, what is new in quantum computing from an ethi-
cal point of view? The paper aims to answer these two questions by (a) developing
an analysis of the existing literature on the ethical and social aspects of quantum
computing and (b) identifying and analyzing the main ethical problems posed by
quantum computing. The conclusion is that quantum computing poses completely
new ethical issues that require new conceptual tools and methods.
Keywords Quantum technologies · Computing · Ethics · Cryptography
1 Introduction
1.1 Context and Motivation
This paper intends to contribute to the emerging literature on the ethical impact of
quantum technologies (QT). This objective is of fundamental importance because if
we can manage to identify possible problems and solutions at an early stage of the
development of a technology, we can employ good forms of ethics and governance
to direct the technology’s development, that is, policies, procedures, and standards
for the correct use and management of the technology. Ethics provides not only a
strategy of opportunity, allowing us to exploit the social value of technologies, but
also a solution for risk management, as it allows us to anticipate and avoid costly
mistakes. Compared to other forms of technology ethics, such as AI ethics, the eth-
ics of QT is more complex and delicate. On the one hand, QTs are still a young
* Luca M. Possati
lupossati@gmail.com
1
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
48 Page 2 of 21 L. M. Possati
technology whose development is largely uncertain and often influenced by a rheto-

ric of the “futuristic revolution” very similar to that used for nanotechnologies and
AI (Coenen & Grunwald, 2017), albeit with less hype. On the other hand, when we
discuss QT, we use an umbrella term referring to a range of technologies that are
very different from each other and that can have different social and ethical impacts
in different contexts.
For the latter reason, in this paper, I intend to focus on only one sector of QT:
quantum computing (QC). QC designates the use of quantum mechanical phenom-
ena, such as interference, superposition, and entanglement, to perform computa-
tions roughly analogous to—although operating quite differently from—those per-
formed on a classical computer.
The paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 contains an analysis of the current lit-
erature on the societal and ethical impacts of QC and QT in general. Section 3 identi-
fies and analyzes some ethical issues about data management and the opacity of pro-
cesses in QC. Section 4 focuses more on algorithm design in QC. Section 5 examines
quantum cryptography and its possible ethical consequences in terms of privacy.
1.2 Technical Gaps
QC can be considered part of the broader field of quantum information science, a field
which includes the following two intertwined subfields: (a) quantum communication
(quantum networking and quantum cryptography) and (b) quantum sensing and metrology
(quantum clocks, quantum antenna, quantum radar, quantum sensors, quantum imaging).
Currently, the main applications of QC (see Jaeger, 2018; Nielsen & Chuang, 2011) are:
• Quantum simulations, that is, the simulation of quantum systems, by facilitating

the discovery of new materials and new drugs, will have a huge impact on the
chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
• Quantum cryptoanalysis: one of the most well-known QC applications, is the fac-
torization of large prime numbers by exponential speedup, as described by Shor’s
algorithm. This can be a threat for public-key cryptography schemes, such as RSA,
DH, and ECC, which are based on large prime number multiplications, the discrete
logarithm problem, or the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem-based schema,
all of which are considered to be computationally very hard or even intractable
for classical computers. At the same time, quantum cryptographic techniques can
ensure maximum levels of confidentiality and security in communications.
• Quantum searching, that is, the development of new faster and more efficient
techniques for Big Data analysis (however, it should be noted that this type of
work would require a large amount of memory and therefore a quantum mem-
ory capable of containing and protecting large amounts of data for a long time,
which can be technically problematic).
• Quantum optimization, that is, the possibility of solving very complex problems
and, in general, of enhancing our computational capabilities in different sectors,
such as logistics or finance.
13
Ethics of Quantum Computing: an Outline Page 3 of 21 48
• Quantum linear algebra, that is, the ability to solve linear equations faster, which
has with important implications for engineering, construction, and weather fore-
casting.
• Quantum machine learning, that is, QC will likely strengthen artificial intelli-
gence systems, although it is unlikely that there will be full quantum AI due to
several technical problems, such as the difficulties of translating classical data
into quantum data, the lack of effective quantum memory systems, and the inef-
fectiveness of QC application for many problems.
In addition to being an emerging field, QC is also an undeveloped technol-

ogy. We do not yet know all of its possible applications. For this reason, it is
very difficult to make predictions and fully understand the potential conse-
quences of this technology. This is not just a technical gap; given the co-evolu-
tion of technology and society, we cannot understand the impact of a specific
technology before it has entered society (Geels, 2005, Rip, 2018). Neverthe-
less, scholars agree that we should consider QC as disruptive technology (Kre-
lina, 2021; Inglesant et al., 2018; Hayashi et al., 2015). This makes ethical
analysis complex, but necessary.
1.3 Regulation Gaps
New and emerging technologies are a challenge to governance. The need for strong
regulations and policies on QTs is globally recognized, as demonstrated by the
various regulatory frameworks developed so far (Hoofnagle & Garfinkel, 2022).
However, current regulatory initiatives do not consider specific ethical problems. In
the UK quantum strategy and the EU midterm report, the terms “ethics,” “ethics,”
and “morals” never appear.1 These terms are also absent from the US National
Strategic Overview for Quantum Information Science.2 There remain important gaps
and open questions that are not even mentioned, for example: How to manage the
quantum divide, that is, the imbalance between populations with advanced quantum
technology (and therefore secure communications) and those without? How does
privacy change in a quantum ecosystem? What ethical questions can quantum
simulation bring? What impact can quantum networks have on finance and market
regulations?
For example, QC could raise entirely new problems in international relations (see
the relevant considerations about geostrategic implications of quantum Internet in
Rodhe, 2021). In the US National Security Memorandum published in March 2022,
it is stated that, in order to cope with the risk posed by quantum cryptography, the
US “must promote professional and academic collaborations with overseas allies and
1
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/uk-quantum-strategy-call-for-evidence; https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/quantum-technologies-flagship#:~:text=The%20Quantum%20Technolo
gies%20Flagship%20is,1%20billion%20from%20the%20EU.
2
https://www.quantum.gov/strategy/
13
partners.”3 This international engagement “is essential for identifying and following
global quantum information science trends and for harmonizing quantum security and
protection programs.”4 However, it is likely that the development of quantum cryp-
tographic systems will lead to the creation of impenetrable communication systems.
This could have dangerous effects in alliances like NATO because it could cause (a)
a power imbalance between countries with advanced quantum systems and coun-
tries without; (b) an increase in mistrust between diplomacies and opacity in insti-
tutional relations; and (c) a significant weakening of the influence of the US on its
European allies. The Memorandum does not touch on any ethical features of quantum
cryptography.
1.4 How This Helps to Fill the Technical and Regulatory Gaps
This paper intends to bridge these gaps from a specific perspective: that of QC and
its main applications. The key issues tackled here are as follows: Are the ethical
problems raised by QC just a different version of the same issues raised by other
technologies, such as nanotechnologies, nuclear plants, or cloud computing? In
other words, what is new about QC from an ethical point of view? The paper aims to
answer these questions by (a) developing an analysis of the existing literature on the
ethical and social aspects of QT and QC and (b) studying these problems through
already existing approaches to ethics of emerging technologies (Brey, 2012a, b). The
conclusion is that QC poses new ethical issues that require new conceptual tools and
methods. Some of these problems are augmented versions of those already posed by
other digital technologies such as AI. Others are completely new; these are mainly
problems posed by purely quantum phenomena, such as entanglement and its appli-
cations, for example, quantum teleportation, quantum swapping, and the concept of
“virtual connectivity.”
The methodology followed is based on a review and analysis of existing literature.
Starting from this review, some fundamental ethical problems related to the technical
characteristics of QC have been identified and analyzed. The identification and analysis
of ethical problems were carried out with reference to engineering ethics (Taebi, 2021),
data ethics (O’Keefe & O’Brien, 2018), and AI ethics (Coeckelbergh, 2021).
2 Literature Survey
A systematic literature search was performed via keyword queries on four widely
used indexing services—Scopus, Web of Science, Philpapers, and Google
Scholar—to identify and analyze the literature on the ethical and societal impacts
3
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefi ng-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/national-security-memor
andum-on-promoting-united-states-leadership-in-quantum-computing-while-mitigating-r isks-to-vulne
rable-cryptographic-systems/
4
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefi ng-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/national-security-memor
andum-on-promoting-united-states-leadership-in-quantum-computing-while-mitigating-r isks-to-vulne
rable-cryptographic-systems/
13
of QC and QT. The research was limited to English-language literature. Five key
search terms were used: “ethics and quantum technology,” “morals and quantum
technology,” “ethical quantum technology,” “society and quantum technology,”
and “social quantum technology.” I selected only those papers whose central
topic was the ethical and societal impacts of QT and QC, therefore excluding all
papers that did not consider QT and QC as their core focus and treated them just
as examples or secondary topics. I have isolated 21 recent relevant papers and
will only comment on the most relevant ones.
The first group of studies analyzed can be classified as a type of essay focused
on problems of a social and communicative nature, for example, how we should
communicate about QT. Wolbring, (2022) analyzes social issues, especially
those concerning equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), for specific marginal-
ized groups in debates, policy documents, and the academic literature on QT. The
results of the survey pose a serious problem: “The quantum technologies-focused
academic literature rarely if ever engages with the ‘social’ of quantum technolo-
gies” (24). However, the findings indicate opportunities for broadening the quan-
tum technologies discourse to the “social” and to EDI, as well as for “an increase
in inter-intra-trans-disciplinary and intersectional collaborations” (24). Mapping
the effects of QT on the “social” is essential for identifying the stakeholders and
enhancing EDI efforts, understanding, and governance.
Four other studies have followed this same line of research. The first, Vermaas
(2017), stresses the need for all stakeholders to understand QT to a reasonable
degree as the basis for an effective and lasting public debate. QT are technologies
that “make quantum theory technologically applicable, and quantum theory is up
to this day framed as an enigmatic theory whose counterintuitive descriptions of
the physical realm are difficult to master” (242). For this reason, philosophers of
physics can play a key role by showing how quantum mechanics and related tech-
nologies are close to everyday practices. The second study, by Coenen & Grunwald,
(2017), proposes a strong RRI approach, envisaging the involvement of parliaments.
In a strong RRI approach, at least some public dialogue and engagement activities
should be designed such that they allow for input from citizens and representatives
of social interests to be fed into parliamentary and other political deliberation and
decision-making processes in a systematic, transparent, and responsive manner. The
third study, de Wolf, (2017), identifies some ethical challenges posed by quantum
cryptography, quantum simulation, and quantum optimization, focusing above all on
the problem of the quantum divide. The fourth study, Grunwald, (2017), concen-
trates on the narrative around QT and how important it is to produce a different non-
mathematical and less mysterious narrative of the technology that is accessible to
the general public and thereby helps foster trust in QT. To popularize QT, we must
convey the beauty and complexity of quantum mechanics.
The present paper intends to develop this line of research by focusing on the orig-
inality of the ethical problems posed by QTs and, in particular, by QC.
The second group of studies is more concerned with the legal aspects of QTs.
Kop’s approach (2021; see also Kop & Hiscott, 2021) proposes ten guiding prin-
ciples for the development and application of QT that are inspired by AI ethics
(i.e., the Asilomar principles) and nanoethics. However, these 10 principles and the
13
corresponding social risks identified by Kop are very generic. It is not clear what
really differentiates QT from AI and nanotechnology. Understanding whether this
difference exists—how QTs are different on an ethical and social level compared
to other technologies—is the purpose of this paper. Furthermore, Kop has a legal-
oriented approach that is only partially ethical (see also Kop, 2022; Jeutner, 2021;
Paperin, 2007).
Quantum technologies are dual use and therefore also have military applications.
The third group of studies considered in this survey concerns the application of QT
and QC to military technologies. Krelina, (2021) reviews and maps possible quan-
tum technology military applications: serving as an entry point for international
peace and safety assessment, ethics research, military policy, governmental policy,
strategy, and decision-making. Quantum technologies used for military applica-
tions (e.g., quantum radar, quantum simulation for chemistry, quantum cryptoanaly-
sis, quantum key distribution) provide new military capabilities, such as improved
effectiveness and increased precision. Military use of these technologies would lead
to “quantum warfare,” wherein new military strategies, doctrines, policies, and eth-
ics should be established. The topic of military use of QT and QC is discussed in
other studies and reports, such as Lele (2021), Neumann et al. (2020), Smith (2020),
Parker (2021, 2022), McKay (2022), Wolf (2019), Grobman (2020).
Perrier (2022) sets guidelines for what he calls the “quantum ethics research pro-
gram.” Perrier (2022) is rightly convinced that “there are unique characteristics of
quantum computation, quantum information processing and certain quantum tech-
nologies which motivate the development of quantum-specific ethical epistemology”
(Perrier, 2022, 10). However, despite the importance of his contribution, Perrier can
be criticized. He makes an important contribution, but in my opinion, it is a limited
one in the sense that it is only deals with some aspects of the ethical investigation on
QC. Furthermore, Perrier indicates four key factors for quantum ethics: computabil-
ity, complexity, consistency, and controllability, which are not strictly ethical con-
cepts (27–29), although they can obviously have an ethical impact.
3 Generic Ethical Issues in Quantum Computing
3.1 The Technology
In 1982, physicist Richard Feynman suggested that quantum mechanical phenomena

could be used to simulate a quantum system more efficiently than a naïve simulation
on a classical computer (Feynman, 1982; Lloyd, 1996). In 1993, Bernstein and
Vazirani demonstrated that quantum computers could violate the extended Church-
Turing thesis—a foundational principle of computer science that said that the
performance of all computers was only polynomially faster than that of a probabilistic
Turing machine (Bernstein & Vazirani, 1993). The quantum algorithm they elaborated
on offered an exponential speedup over any classical algorithm for the computational
task of recursive Fourier sampling. Simon (1997) invented another example of a
quantum algorithm demonstrating exponential speedup for a different computational
problem. Quantum computation can violate the extended Church-Turing thesis;
13
therefore, only quantum computers are capable of exponential speedups over classical
computers (I only provide an outline here; so for more technical details, see Hayashi
(2006), Hayashi et al. (2015), Nielsen and Chuang (2011), and Zygelman (2018)).
On an abstract level, computation is a procedure that transforms inputs into
outputs through a sequence of elementary operations (Hayashi et al., 2015, 37).
In classical computation, the input/output system is not interpreted in terms of
quantum mechanics in the sense that all quantum effects present in the device are
systematically neglected. In quantum computing, on the other hand, the input/
output system is interpreted according to quantum mechanics. Therefore, the first
essential difference between these two models is the interpretation of the data and
the computational process. QC introduces a completely new conceptual and logical
framework that differs from the classical one.
The difference between classical and quantum computations is evident in the
distinction between bits and qubits. In a classical computational system, there
are only two possible states—1 and 0—which are ontologically determined, while
epistemologically, they can be determined or indeterminate, that is, known in an
approximate and probabilistic way. In other words, classical computation is based on
the measurement of a physical system represented as a set of two possible states whose
structure is governed by Boolean logic. Consequently, “uncertainty about what state
a classical system is in is thus not ontological, but epistemological, a representation
of the uncertainty of our knowledge rather than any intrinsic indeterminacy about the
system state itself” (Perrier, 2022, 17).
In a quantum computational system, the possible states are ontologically and
epistemologically indeterminable. The notion of the “state of the system” changes
radically based on interpretations of calculations (see Susskind & Friedman, 2014, 36).
In fact, the state of a quantum system is indeterminable in the sense that the only thing
we can know about it is a set of probabilities and their interpretations, the so-called
probability amplitudes. A quantum bit, or qubit, has two quantum states analogous
to classical binary states. While the qubit can be in either state, it can also exist in a
superposition between the two. These states are often represented in the so-called Dirac
notation, where the state’s label is written between two “kets”, | and ⟩. Dirac’s formalism
is used more generally in mathematics to denote abstract vectors in a Hilbert space. Thus,
a qubit’s two component—or basis—states are generally written as | 0⟩ and | 1⟩. In
general, the physical state of a qubit is the superposition | ψ ⟩ = α | 0 ⟩ + β | 1 ⟩(where α
and β are complex numbers). The states | 0 ⟩ and | 1 ⟩ are known as the computational
basis states, and form an orthonormal basis for this vector space. According to quantum
theory, when we try to measure the qubit in this basis in order to determine its state, we
get either | 0 ⟩ with probability | α | 2 or | 1 ⟩ with probability | β | 2.
In other terms, any qubit wave function may be written as a linear combination of
the two states, each with its own complex coefficient:
ai ∶ ||ψ >= a0 ||0 > ||+a1 ||1 >
Since the probability of reading a state is proportional to the square of its coef-
ficient’s magnitude, | a0 | 2 corresponds to the probability of detecting the state | 0⟩
and | a1 | 2 to the probability of detecting | 1⟩. The sum of the probabilities of each
13
possible output state must be 100%, mathematically expressed in this case as | a0 |

2
+| a1 | 2 = 1 (i.e., the qubit is a unit vector in the aforementioned Hilbert space; see
Hagar & Cuffaro, 2022; Grumbling & Horowitz, 2019, 35; Ayoade et al., 2022).
This leads us to focus on some fundamental aspects of QC that can only be
touched on in this section but have a major impact on the design of quantum compu-
tational systems:
• Superposition. A quantum system can exist in two or more states at once, which
is referred to as a superposition of states or a “superposition state.” The wave
function for such a superposition state can be described as a linear combination
of contributing states with complex coefficients. The latter describes the magni-
tude and relative phases between the contributing states. This feature is essential:
“quantum superposition is the framework for understanding all quantum phe-
nomena” (Hughes et al., 2021, 24).
• Coherence. When a quantum system’s state can be described by a set of com-
plex numbers, one for each basis state of the system, the system state is said to
be coherent. Coherence is necessary for quantum phenomena, such as quantum
interference, superposition, and entanglement. Short interactions with the envi-
ronment cause quantum systems to slowly decohere. Environmental interactions
make even the complex coefficients for each state probabilistic.
• No-cloning theorem. This theorem prohibits copying an unknown quantum
state (Nielsen & Chuang, 2011). As a consequence, it is not allowed to copy
and re-transmit—or to transmit multiple copies of—a qubit whenever its state is
unknown. This theorem has profound consequences for qubit error correction, as
well as for quantum communication security (see Dieks, 1982).
• Entanglement. Regardless of the distance between them, the entangled particles
exhibit special correlations that are instantaneous and appear to defy classical
notions of locality. When the state of one entangled particle is measured, it instan-
taneously affects the state of the other(s), even if they are far apart, leading to what
Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” This phenomenon arises when the
wave functions for different particles are not separable—in mathematical terms,
when the wave function for the entire system cannot be written as a product of the
wave functions for each particle (Grumbling & Horowitz, 2019, 28).
3.2 Data Management
As Perrier, (2022) states, “there are potential ethical issues to be explored about the
ethics of encoding data (such as from a fair representation learning)” (20), which
is also a concern found in AI ethics (McNamara et al., 2019). These characteristic
aspects of QC entail a radical transformation of the understanding of data on multi-
ple intertwined levels. Table 1 schematically illustrates the impact of QC on differ-
ent aspects of understanding of data:
Data mining is the process of collecting, filtering, and cleaning the data before
storing it in a data warehouse or some other storage device. The data must be filtered
13
Table 1 The impact of QC on different aspects of understanding of data

Data features Impact
Volume High impact: risk of a new data deluge

Velocity High impact: speedup of production and analysis
Variety (data types) High impact: need for new data classifications
Veracity (truthfulness) High impact: risk of high fragility of data
Variability (inconsistencies) High impact: need for new types of controls
Validity (correctness for intended uses) High impact: need for more supervision
Visualization High impact: need for new types of visualization
and compressed so that it does not throw away any relevant information. Defining
such filters is one of the major challenges (Gupta & Rani, 2019). Another challenge
is enabling the automatic generation of metadata. Metadata describes what data are
logged and how they are logged and measured. In this case, QC can make a dif-
ference by providing new tools and conceptual solutions. For example, it is likely
that QC will provide new resources for tagging data and establishing new catego-
ries of metadata thanks to (a) heuristic methods optimization, (b) improved database
searching, and (c) dense coding technique, that is, the ability to communicate a num-
ber of classical bits of information by only transmitting a smaller number of qubits,
under the assumption of sender and receiver pre-sharing an entangled resource
(Horodecki et al., 1997, 10–11). In certain contexts, QC exponentially increases the
capacity to produce and process data.
However, there is a crucial problem that makes the integration of QC in classic
data mining very complex: the concept of quantum information is completely differ-
ent from that of classic information. QC requires a major paradigm shift for harness-
ing the peculiarities of quantum mechanics. Here are some points to note regarding
quantum information—however, the implications of decoherence, entanglement,
and superposition for data mining remain to be fully explored:
1. Decoherence and the no-cloning theorem make it impossible to think of informa-

tion in the classical sense, that is, as something that can be copied and recorded
indefinitely and safely.
2. Entanglement is the essential feature of quantum information and communica-
tion. This quantum phenomenon has enormous repercussions for data storage and
networks. The digital identity in QC is not linked to the data stored and copied
but rather to connectivity and synchronicity.
3. Superposition allows you to encode data in a completely new way. In the same
qubit, we can encode and use very different types of data.
Quantum information is therefore (a) fragile and (b) unstable. It is fragile because
it cannot be copied and stored, and it is unstable because it depends on entanglement
and superposition. Quantum information is distinguished by these aspects, but it is
not the case that all quantum information is in a superposition state or entangled.
13
Table 2 Quantum characteristics that pose fundamental ethical problems in data management
Identity Disintegration of identity understood as the definition of boundaries between individuals

and groups. Entanglement, superpositions, and the no-cloning theorem pose high risks
of lack of identification and autonomy. The superposition would allow for combining
and mixing data from different sources to build increasingly complex and stratified
identities. For example, in the encoding phase, the superposition would allow the build-
ing of digital identities using data that does not belong to that identity, individual, or
group
Privacy It is impossible to think of privacy in the classical sense, that is, as the protection of
personal information and their communication. The no-cloning theorem guarantees
maximum security but also causes data fragility, that is, difficulties in controlling data.
Moreover, the use of quantum superposition in encoding data would make it possible to
encode sensitive data and misuse this data without getting caught
Ownership Difficulty in controlling access and data management. For example, blind quantum com-
puting guarantees maximum security, but is also a big risk because it could be used for
the purpose of hacking servers
Traceability The complexity of quantum data makes it more difficult to reconstruct their history,
location, and application. Entanglement and superposition erase the very idea of a data
location. This damages the trust in the data and their degree of reliability (more on this
later)
The instability of quantum information is made clearer by two other characteristics

of QC:
1. In a quantum network, any node sharing entanglement resources can act either
as source or as destination—there is not a fixed, pre-established order. Moreo-
ver, it has been discovered that the order among the communication channels
traversed by quantum information carrier can be indefinite (Illiano et al.,
2022, 11).
2. Also, unlike classic bits, qubits are “stateful,” in the sense that to use the qubit,
we need information about its state (Illiano et al., 2022, 9). While to operate on
the classic bit, we do not need further information on its state, in the case of the
qubit, the situation changes; for example, any qubit inevitably degrades over time
due to the decoherence phenomenon, so to properly use a qubit, it is necessary
to have information on the residual coherence time. This greatly increases the
complexity of quantum data management.
These characteristics pose fundamental ethical problems (Table 2):

Another important consideration concerns the risk of a new “data deluge.” The
enhancement of current digital technologies thanks to QC will certainly lead to the
production of much more data and, therefore, an acceleration of the pace of expan-
sion of the digital universe. Moreover, other QT applications such as quantum sen-
sors, quantum clocks, quantum radar, and quantum imaging will provide new types
of Big Data. This poses a huge problem in terms of storage. Increasingly complex
data centers will be needed, and this could pose new environmental issues with ethi-
cal consequences.
13
3.3 Processes: a New Form of Opacity
Given the stochastic nature of the quantum computational system, the relationship
between inputs and outputs is not necessarily always the same: “running the same pro-
gram over and over again will not necessarily lead to identical output” (Perrier, 2022,
11). This aspect has enormous implications, as it forces us to rethink the crucial prob-
lem of process opacity, which is closely related to the question of accountability for
unjust results and unintended consequences, and the ethical criteria to be used in the
design of quantum algorithms (Ayoade et al., 2022; Weiss & Saffman, 2017).
However, the stochastic nature of the system is not an essential feature of QC.
The crucial problem is that there is a fracture between the data and the information
in QC.
When we extract data from the qubit, we take a measurement. By measuring the
system, we extract the data and build information. Now, in the act of measurement,
what physicists call the “collapse of the wave function” occurs. The wave function
in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically, according to the Schrödinger equa-
tion, as a linear superposition of several states. However, the actual measurement
always finds the physical system in a defined state. There are many different inter-
pretations5 of measurement in quantum mechanics (see Vermaas, 1999, Chapters 10
and 14). The state determines, through the Born rule and Schrödinger equation, the
probabilities of finding outcomes after the measurement. The interpretation of these
results allows us to deduce the properties of the system. The point is that “all infor-
mation about the [probability] amplitudes is destroyed upon measurement” (Grum-
bling & Horowitz, 2019, 71). This means that all data prior to the measurement are
lost. Measurement fundamentally disrupts a quantum state: “it [the quantum state]
‘collapses’ the aspect of wave function that was measured into a single observable
state, resulting in a loss of data. After the measurement, the quantum object’s wave
function is that of the state that was detected, rather than that of its premeasure-
ment state” (Grumbling & Horowitz, 2019, 57; emphasis added). This is what physi-
cists call the “measurement problem,” which is crucial. De Lima Marquezino et al.,
(2021) say that “the amplitudes of the state | ψ 〉 as it is before measurement are
inaccessible. The measurement process inevitably disturbs | ψ 〉 forcing it to collapse
to one vector of the computational basis. This collapse is non-deterministic, with the
probabilities given by the squared norms of the corresponding amplitudes in | ψ 〉”
(19). From this standpoint, the measurement is only a statistical tool—a way to pre-
dict the evolution of certain measures without any ontological or semantic commit-
ment. As Maudlin (2019) writes, this problem has nothing to do with measurement
itself: “It is rather the problem of physically explaining how experiments come to
have the sorts of outcomes we take them to have” (Maudlin, 2019, 98).
A thorough discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper. However,
I believe that the problem of measurement is fundamental for QC because it is con-
nected to another crucial problem: that of transparency, that is, the communication,
5
By “interpretation” I do not mean that these theories are mere arbitrary inventions. Instead, they are all
well-constructed scientific theories with numerous experimental ramifications (Carroll, 2020, 26).
13
explanation, and interpretation of the quantum algorithm and its decisions. Can we
open the quantum black box? Most people do not know how most algorithms (or
technology) work and are not provided with any explanation of why they do. Yet,
they accept the technology in their lives. There is considerable debate as to whether
people actually want interpretability. This issue becomes even more complex in
QC because the opacity of QC is not only epistemic, like that of classical AI, but
ontological.
For instance, the lack of transparency is an inherent characteristic of self-learn-
ing algorithms, which alter their decision logic and produce new sets of rules dur-
ing the learning process, making it difficult for developers to maintain a detailed
understanding of why certain changes have been made (Floridi, 2022; Tsamados
et al., 2022; Burrell 2016; Buhmann et al., 2019). However, this does not necessar-
ily translate into opaque outcomes, as even without understanding each logical step,
developers can adjust hyperparameters, i.e., the parameters that govern the training
process, to test for various outputs. The complexity of neural networks is due to the
large amount of data and processes and therefore to the human cognitive inability
to process them. In QC, the situation is much more complex because opacity does
not concern only human limits, but rather the processes themselves. The explanation
and justification of the algorithm’s behavior therefore need two interpretative levels:
(a) the epistemic one, which is in common with classical systems, and (b) the onto-
logical one, which requires an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
From an engineering point of view, the problem of measurement is irrelevant, as
it is an interpretative issue and therefore does not concern the technical functioning
of QC. However, it poses serious problems on an ethical level. How can we explain
and justify the decision-making process of a quantum algorithm if we lose all the
data before the measurement? How can we be sure that the process followed by a
quantum algorithm is ethically correct if we cannot completely access it as it unfolds
before the measurements? How can we be sure that phenomena such as entangle-
ment and superposition do not produce effects contrary to ethical standards and pro-
tocols, such as the use of sensitive data to reduce the decoherence of the system?
The new form of quantum opacity complicates the problem of trust in the algorithm,
which is connected to transparency (Coeckelbergh, 2021). This also has conse-
quences for the level of responsibility analysis, that is, what Floridi, (2016) calls
“distributed moral responsibility” in a network of agents. Therefore, QC requires a
rethink of the relationship between the explainability and transparency of algorithms
as well as the limits of each.
4 The Algorithm Design
Research on the ethics of algorithms has grown substantially over the past decade.
Alongside the exponential development and application of machine learning algo-
rithms, new ethical issues and solutions relating to their ubiquitous use in society
have been proposed (Tsamados et al., 2022). For example, racial minorities might
be less likely to find housing via algorithmic matching systems, algorithmically
controlled job matching systems might restrict the information available for use by
13
the economically disadvantaged, or online markets might unfairly make goods more
expensive for particular demographics or geographic locations. These issues are all
cases of algorithmic biases (Bozdag, 2013; Datta & Tschantz, 2015). Studies also
suggest evidence of racial discrimination in prediction algorithms and gender bias
by Google (Zhu et al., 2018).
Tsamados et al. (2022) propose distinguishing six types of ethical problems
raised by algorithms:
• Inconclusive evidence (focusing on non-causal indicators can distract attention

from the actual causes of a given problem)
• Inscrutable evidence
• Misguided evidence
• Unfair outcomes
• Transformative effects
• Traceability
The first three have an epistemic nature concerned with the accuracy and qual-
ity of the data for the ongoing process. The fourth and fifth are more normative in
nature, concerned with the effects of processes. The sixth is relevant from both an
epistemic and a normative point: it is the problem of transparency of the processes.
Let us try to translate them into QC:
• Inconclusive evidence: This is the practice of apophenia, that is, “seeing pat-
terns where none actually exist, simply because massive quantities of data
can offer connections that radiate in all directions” (Boyd & Crawford, 2012,
668). Focusing on non-causal indicators may distract attention from the
underlying causes of a given problem, and this can have major ethical conse-
quences (Floridi et al., 2020). Now, QC will increase the connectivity of our
algorithms and networks. In fact, “the nonclassical correlations provided by
entanglement can be leveraged not only for transmitting classical and quantum
information, but also for enabling groundbreaking applications with no-coun-
terpart in the classical Internet, ranging from secure communications through
blind computing to distributed quantum computing” (Illiano et al., 2022, 2).
Entanglements allow new forms of connectivity, such as quantum teleporta-
tion and quantum swapping (Briegel et al., 1998). While classical connectiv-
ity strictly depends on classical physical channels, in quantum networks, we
can use “virtual links” and “virtual connectivity” or “augmented connectiv-
ity” (Illiano et al., 2022, 13) that are not affected by the conditions of classical
physical channels; for example, quantum teleportation is a form of virtual link
because it enables the transmission of one qubit without any use of a physical
channel—“as long as an entangled state is shared between two nodes, they
can transmit a qubit regardless of the instantaneous conditions of the underly-
ing physical quantum channel” (Illiano et al., 2022, 14). These new forms of
connectivity increase the complexity of the analysis and, therefore, the risk of
apophenia.
13
• Inscrutable evidence: This problem is related to what was said above about
the specific opacity of the QC; we need to establish new testing and auditing
tools suited to QC characteristics, as well as new types of explanations and
communications.
• Misguided evidence: The problem of bias in QC is strictly related to access
and use. It is likely that quantum computers will not be available to the public
for various reasons (economic, social, intellectual, etc.). Restricted access can
be connected to the prevalence of restricted social groups in the use of these
machines. This situation comes with the risk of facilitating discrimination,
fake news, and exclusion of minorities.
• Unfair outcomes: Many definitions of algorithmic fairness have gained
prominence in the recent literature (Kleinberg et al., 2016; Corbett-Davies
& Goel, 2018). The greater computational power provided by the QC could
allow the development of strategies capable of improving fairness, conceived
as statistical parity between social groups. For example, a quantum algo-
rithm could take advantage of “virtual connectivity,” which is more dynamic
than physical connectivity, to remedy the problem of inequality in a service
distribution network. In fact, augmented connectivity can redefine the same
concept of “neighborhood” in a city; “two nodes can be ‘neighbors’ in the
augmented graph whenever they are directly connected by an augmented link,
even though they are physically remote from each other. This new concept
of neighborhood has no counterpart in the classical network” (Illiano et al.,
2022, 16). Therefore, the algorithm could exploit the “virtual connectivity”
of QC to activate and develop the services, even in those areas that are most
discriminated against because they are not reached by classical physical con-
nectivity.
• Transformative effects: It is foreseeable that quantum algorithms will make AI
much more dynamic, pervasive, and proactive than classical AI. This could seri-
ously damage the autonomy of humans. The problem is complicated by the low
opacity of these algorithms.
• Traceability: The technical complexity and dynamism of AI algorithms make them
prone to concerns of “agency laundering,” which consists of distancing oneself
from morally suspect actions, regardless of whether those actions were intended or
not, by blaming the algorithm (Rubel et al., 2019). This is practiced by organiza-
tions as well as by individuals. It is foreseeable that the complexity of QC could
exacerbate this phenomenon. It is likely that the no-cloning theorem will have a
huge impact on the traceability of responsibility in QC.
Let us now analyze a concrete use case. An important question is the moral impli-
cations of entanglement. As mentioned earlier, entanglement is the phenomenon
that characterizes quantum mechanics more than any other. Entangled particles exist
in a shared state, such that any action on a particle instantaneously affects the other
particle(s) as well, i.e., they are perfectly synchronized. This quantum correlation and
synchronization, with no counterpart in the classical world, holds regardless of the dis-
tance between the particles. Entanglement is not about information, but correlation. If
Alice, Bob, and Eve share three entangled qubits, and all agree beforehand to follow
13
the same procedure with them (measuring in this basis, if it is 0, do this, if it is 1, do

that), in the end they can use it to get synchronous actions, but would have no control
on whether that action is 0 or 1. Therefore, entanglement as a resource gives us access
to a nonlocal correlation, but not to information. Alice, Bob, and Eve’s actions become
correlated irrespective of whether the information is 0 or 1. This means that entangle-
ment gives them distributed and nonlocal randomness, but cannot be used to transmit
either 0 or 1. If Alice sends Bob 0s or 1s (and not a combination of both simultane-
ously) using a qubit, this is not an entangled state (it is technically called a “separable
state,” which is still quantum mechanical, but not entangled). Therefore, if Alice does
not have the measurement results from Bob, she cannot use entanglement to recon-
struct the information.
Now, the ability to produce and manage entanglement over great distances could be
used as a lethal weapon. Entanglement distribution over long distances can be achieved
via quantum repeaters with satellite links (Boone et al., 2015; Sangouard et al., 2007).
A potential enemy wishing to attack a quantum network could use remote entangle-
ment distributions to warp information within the network and manipulate it without
being detected. The potential hacker could produce an entanglement between a photon
encoding the qubit flowing in the network (A) and another photon outside the network
(B). In this way, they would be able to influence and modify the synchronization used
in the network. Entangling qubit A with qubit B would allow them to influence the
synchronization between B and A without needing any contact or any kind of classi-
cal interaction. This could seriously affect communication in the network. The hacker
could even use the entangled pair to send information somewhere else through telepor-
tation, using the attacked network as a repeater. The attack could not be discovered for
several reasons: (a) in general, the duration of entanglement is very short; (b) there
are several strategies for the detection of entanglement, but implementing them is very
complex—and it is not certain that they can detect the entanglement (Ayoade et al.,
2022); (c) creating network security barriers may not help as the enemy could use
quantum tunneling.
This is obviously a futuristic scenario, but it is also a realistic eventuality. For this
reason, the design of the algorithm should include certain limitations in the use of
entanglement based on clear and shared rules and values. An important research direc-
tion is therefore that of governance of entanglement in the quantum Internet.
5 The Case of Quantum Cryptography
5.1 Introduction
Cryptography is an indispensable means used to protect information in computer

systems and is widely used to protect communications on the Internet. In 1994, Peter
Shor showed that several important computational problems could, in principle, be
solved significantly more efficiently using a quantum computer—if such a machine
could be built. Specifically, he derived algorithms for factoring large integers and
solving discrete logarithms rapidly—problems that could take even the largest com-
puter today thousands or millions of years, or even the lifetime of the universe, to
13
compute. This was a striking discovery because it also suggested that anyone with a
real-world quantum computer could break the cryptographic codes, compromising
the safety of encrypted communications and stored data, and potentially uncovering
protected secrets or private information. Indeed, most of our digital infrastructure,
and basically anything we do online—whether it is video conferencing, sending
e-mails, or accessing our online bank account—is encrypted through cryptographic
protocols based on the difficulty of solving factorization problems (i.e., the RSA
algorithm). A breakdown caused by a quantum computer could have serious impli-
cations. The first organization able to develop a quantum computer implementing
Shor’s algorithm will be able to decrypt any communication and code. Privacy and
intelligence will be seriously damaged, and governments will face major problems
as they try to defend their communications. Potential hackers could also steal clas-
sified information today and decrypt it in the future when they will have a quantum
computer.
5.2 Moral Analysis
The ethical problem at the heart of this QC application concerns, above all, the clash
between security and privacy. Both are considered intrinsic values: “The right bal-
ance between privacy and justified surveillance for safety purposes is a very tricky
ethical question” (de Wolf, 2017, 274). There are four stakeholders involved: institu-
tions, customers/users, companies, and academia. Institutions are tasked with main-
taining safety and surveillance; this is their key value. Companies and users ask for
privacy or the protection of their identity. Furthermore, companies want to be able
to develop trade and business, which are their main values, and they contribute to
the main moral problem—that is, the clash between security and privacy.
Now, how should a government interfere in the transition phase from current
cryptographic systems to quantum ones? The crucial problem at this stage is that our
hypothetical government does not know if other governments, hackers, or compa-
nies have already developed a quantum computer big enough to break systems and
steal data. It would only know this once the attack had occurred, and so would have
no time to react.
There are two options at this point. The first is to immediately guarantee higher
levels of safety by strengthening current systems, such as using post-quantum algo-
rithms (e.g., lattice systems, coding-based systems, supersingular isogenies, hash-
based signatures, etc.). This option, however, implies (a) a significant increase in
controls and a progressive diminishment of the privacy and autonomy of companies
and citizens, (b) a decrease in the transparency of government activities, and (c) the
moral risk of paternalism, that is, the government deciding what is best for citizens
and companies without consulting them. The second is to accelerate the migra-
tion from our current cryptographic systems to fully quantum systems. The risk, in
this case, is that this migration is too slow and therefore (a) incomplete, exposing
it to possible attacks, and (b) does not cover some of the interested parties, that is,
users and companies that have not yet developed the appropriate technology. Both
13
consequences could greatly increase the inequalities between countries and citizens
and between those who already have quantum cryptographic systems and those who
do not and who have less security and privacy as a result. This could fuel new forms
of exploitation and damage to human dignity.
Dismantling existing safety systems and replacing them with post-quantum sys-
tems could take a long time. Grumbling & Horowitz, (2019, 109) argue that the
process could last at least 20 years. Furthermore, migration does not ensure com-
plete security since even if the migration started today, many sensitive data (i.e.,
government-classified documents whose content cannot be made public for at least
50 years) could be stolen and stored before being decrypted when a large quantum
computer running quantum error correction becomes available. If a fault-tolerant
quantum computer with a large number of qubits is built over the next 25 years, all
documents classified today are potentially at risk.6 The encryption keys that quan-
tum key distribution produces cannot be broken by Shor’s algorithm. This poses a
further problem, namely, that of an excess of privacy and security. Criminal organi-
zations and individual citizens could use quantum keys to bypass controls and com-
mit crimes. This could lead to an increasingly decentralized quantum Internet, with
all the consequences that this entails in terms of distributive justice. Furthermore,
rethinking privacy also means rethinking the ethics of welfare and, therefore, key
concepts, such as interdependence, solidarity, happiness, and the value of citizen-
ship. A question remains crucial: Is non-breakable cryptography—that is, an abso-
lute secret—ethically acceptable?
It would be simplistic to oppose security and privacy strictly. Obviously, the QTs
will require us to find new balances between these values. Discussing the relation-
ship between security and privacy in more depth is not the purpose of this paper.
Here, I will limit myself to emphasizing that quantum cryptography and QC force us
to rethink the concept of privacy itself.
The QC forces us to separate two sides of privacy: (a) privacy as information
control and (b) privacy as the construction of one’s social identity (Elliott & Soifer,
2022). These two concepts are connected in classic communication systems: privacy
implies control over the dissemination of information and, therefore, over one’s social
identity, that is, how we are seen and considered by others. In the quantum world, this
changes. On the one hand, the control of information becomes increasingly complex
due to the fragility of the information itself, of the storage and management systems,
and therefore also of security, as we have seen in the previous parts of this paper. On
the other hand, QC asks us to rethink the construction of our digital identity in differ-
ent terms. This is an unexplored problem that calls for new research.
5.3 The Overlapping Consensus
Finding a good balance between privacy and security in an ever-changing context

requires a solid international regulatory framework. Even if companies and institutions
6
See: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography
13
have different values and goals, they can agree on the moral assessment that the right
balance must be found between privacy and security in a post-quantum world. A pos-
sible dialogue model could be Rawls’s overlapping consensus (Rawls, 1993, 2001).
An overlapping consensus is not a compromise because it requires each of the
discussants to justify it in terms of their own reflections and evaluations. There are
three fundamental conditions for reaching this type of consensus: (a) all parties
must accept a reasonable level of pluralism in moral views; (b) inclusiveness, in the
sense that all relevant perspectives must be included in the debate; and (c) openness,
meaning that new considerations and parts can always enter the debate (van de Poel
& Royakkers, 2011, 156–57). This means that the actors in the process do not nec-
essarily have to share the same values, but they must be able to justify the common
agreement reached through their values and reflective processes.
In the case of quantum cryptography, the overlapping consensus model can be a
useful tool when actors who do not share the same values, such as US and China,
need to establish a common regulatory framework. The need to avoid the danger of a
“cryptographic war” could require finding a vast international agreement, even among
those nations that have different conceptions of democracy and communication about
sensitive data but that recognize the common danger. This does not mean that I think
the Rawlsian model is perfect. Many criticisms can be made of this model (Watene &
Drydyk, 2016). However, in such delicate and complex situations as a “cryptographic
war,” a moderate level of overlapping consensus could be the starting point for reach-
ing a greater consensus about certifications and standards.
6 Conclusions
This paper is intended to contribute to research on the ethical impact of QT and QC.
I analyzed some of the main ethical problems raised by QC on three levels: technol-
ogy, artifact, and applications. A very complex picture emerges. QC features such as
the no-cloning theorem, blind computing, superposition, entanglement, or the con-
cept of “virtual connectivity” are extremely ambiguous because they pose both risks
and opportunities in terms of security, privacy, data management, etc. New research
is needed to better understand these problems and their implications. I indicate two
important possible future research directions:
• Centralized versus decentralized regulation

• Strategy of communication to popularize QT and QC and increase public accept-
ance and trust
Abbreviations QT: Quantum technologies; QC: Quantum computing
Author Contribution Not applicable.
13
Data Availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable.
Consent for Publication Not applicable.
Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
References
Ayoade, O., Rivas, P., & Orduz, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence computing at the quantum level. Data,
(28)7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7030028
Bernstein, E., and Vazirani, U. (1993). “Quantum complexity theory” Proceedings of the 25th Annual
ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ‘93), San Diego, 16–18 May 1993, 11–20.
Boone, K., Bourgoin, J., Meyer-Scott, E., Heshami, K., Jennewein, T., & Simon, C. (2015). Entanglement
over global distances via quantum repeaters with satellite links. Physical Review A, 91, 052325
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052325
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technologi-
cal, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology,
15, 209–227.
Brey, P. (2012a). Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology, 14,
305–317.
Brey, P. (2012b). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 6, 1–13.
Briegel, H., Dür, W., Cirac, J., & Zoller, P. (1998). Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local opera-
tions in quantum communication. Physical Review Letters, 81, 5932 https://journals.aps.org/prl/
abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5932
Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J., & Fieseler, C. (2019). Managing algorithmic accountability: balancing repu-
tational concerns, engagement strategies, and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Business
Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big
Data and Society, 1–12.
Carroll, S. (2020). Something deeply hidden: Quantum world and the emergence of spacetime. Dutton.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2021). AI Ethics. MIT Press.
Coenen, C., & Grunwald, A. (2017). Responsible research and innovation (RRI) in quantum technology.
Ethics and Information Technology, 19, 277–294.
Corbett-Davies, S., & Goel, S. (2018). The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair
machine learning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00023
Datta, A., & Tschantz, M. C. (2015). Automated experiments on Ad privacy settings. Proc Priv Enhanc
Technol, 1, 92–112.
13
De Wolf, R. (2017). The potential impact of quantum computers on society. Ethics and Information Tech-
nology, 19, 271–276.
De Lima Marquezino, F., Portugal, R., & Lavor, C. (2021). A primer on quantum computing. Springer.
Dieks, D. (1982). Communication by EPR devices. Physics Letters A, 92, 271–272.
Elliott, D., & Soifer, E. (2022). AI technologies, privacy and security. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.826737
Feynman, R. P. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics,
21(6–7), 467–488.
Floridi, L. (2016). Faultless responsibility: On the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed
moral actions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.3742016011220160112
Floridi, L. (2022). Etica dell’intelligenza artificiale. Raffaello Cortina.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., King, T. C., & Taddeo, M. (2020). How to design AI for social good: Seven essential
factors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1771–1796.
Geels, F. (2005). Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene
in the Netherlands (1850–1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective. Technology in Society, 27(3),
363–397.
Grobman, S. (2020). Quantum computing’s cyber-threat to national security. PRISM, 9(1), 52–67.
Grumbling, E., & Horowitz, M. (Eds.). (2019). Quantum computing progress and prospects. The National
Academies Press.
Grunwald, A. (2017). Narratives of quantum theory in the age of quantum technologies. Ethics and Informa-
tion Technology, 19, 295–306.
Gupta, D., & Rani, R. (2019). A study of big data evolution and research challenges. Journal of Information
Science, 45(3), 322–340.
Hagar, A., & Cuffaro, M. (2022). Quantum computing. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2022 edition).
Hayashi, M. (2006). Quantum information: An introduction. Springer.
Hayashi, M., Ishizaka, S., Kawachi, A., Kimura, G., & Ogawa, T. (2015). Introduction to Quantum Informa-
tion Science. Springer.
Hoofnagle, C., & Garfinkel, S. (2022). Law and policy for the quantum age. Cambridge University Press.
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (1997). Quantum entanglement. arXiv. https://
arxiv.org/abs/quantph/0702225
Hughes, C., Isaacson, J., Perry, A., Sun, R. F., & Turner, J. (2021). Quantum computing for the quantum
curious. Springer.
Illiano, J., Caleffi, M., Manzalini, A., & Cacciapuoti, A. S. (2022). Quantum internet protocol stack: A com-
prehensive study. Computer Networks (231). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109092
Inglesant, P., Jirotka, M., & Hartswood, M. (2018). Responsible innovation in quantum technologies applied
to defence and national security. Networked Quantum Information Technologies. https://nqit.ox.ac.uk/
index.php/content/responsible-innovation-defence-briefi ng-note.html
Jaeger, L. (2018). The second quantum revolution. Springer.
Jeutner, V. (2021). The quantum imperative: Addressing the legal dimension of quantum computers. Morals
+ machines 1.
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2016). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk
scores. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807
Kop, M., & Hiscott, L. (2021). Ethics in the quantum age. Physics World, 34(12), 31.
Kop, M. (2022). Quantum computing and intellectual property law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860456
Krelina, M. (2021). Quantum technologies for military applications. arXiv 2103 12548.
Lele, A. (2021). Quantum technologies and military strategy. Springer.
Lloyd, S. (1996). Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278), 1073–1078.
Maudlin, T. (2019). Philosophy of physics: Quantum theory. Princeton University Press.
McAfee, A., Saltiel, N., Rahwan, I., & Dinakar, K. (2016). Society in the loop artificial intelligence. https://
joi.ito.com/weblog/2016/06/23/society-in-the-.html
McKay, E. (2022). Keep the fight unfair: Military rhetoric in quantum technology. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/
abs/2203.01415
McNamara, D., Graham, T., Broad, E., & Ong, C. S. (2019). Trade-offs in Algorithmic risk assessment: An
Australian domestic violence case study. In A. Daly, S. K. Devitt, & M. Mann (Eds.), Good data (pp.
96–116). Institute of Network Cultures.
Medvechy, F., & Leach, L. (2019). An ethics of science communication. Palgrave Macmillan.
13
Neumann, N., van Heesch, M., & De Graaf, P. (2020). Quantum communication for military applications.
arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04989
Nielsen, M., & Chuang, I. (2011). Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University
Press.
O’Keefe, K., & O’Brien, D. (2018). Ethical data and information management. KoganPage.
Olson, J., Cao, Y., Romero, J., Johnson, P., Dallaire-Demers, P., Sawaya, N., Narang, P., Kivlichan, I.,
Wasielewski, M., & Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2017). Quantum information and computation for chemistry.
arXiv 1706.05413.
Paperin, G. (2007). Security of communication and quantum technology. In: Encyclopedia of Information
Ethics and Security (pp. 602–608). IGI Global.
Parker, E. (2021). An assessment of the U.S. and Chinese industrial bases in quantum technology. RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA869-1.html
Parker, E. (2022). Commercial and military applications and timelines for quantum technologies. RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1482-4.html
Perrier, E. (2021). Quantum fair machine learning. arXiv, arXiv 2102.00753.
Perrier, E. (2022). Ethical quantum computing: A roadmap. arXiv, arXiv:2102.00759.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness. A Restatement. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rip, A. (2018). Futures of science and technology in society. Springer.
Rodhe, P. (2021). The quantum internet. The second quantum revolution. Cambridge University Press.
Rubel, A., Castro, C., & Pham, A. (2019). Agency laundering and information technologies. Ethical Theory
and Moral Practice, 22(4), 1017–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10030-w
Sangouard, N., Simon, C., Minář, J., Zbinden, H., De Riedmatten, H., & Gisin, N. (2007). Long-distance
entanglement distribution with single-photon sources. Physical Review A, 76, 050301(R). https://journ
als.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.050301
Simon, D. R. (1997). On the power of quantum computation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5),
1474–1483.
Smith, F. (2020). Quantum technology hype and national security. Security and Dialogue, 51(5), 499–516.
Susskind, L., & Friedman, A. (2014). Quantum mechanics: The theoretical minimum. Penguin.
Taebi, B. (2021). Ethics and engineering. Cambridge University Press.
Tsamados, A., Aggarwal, N., & Cowls, J. (2022). The ethics of algorithms: Key problems and solutions. AI
& Society, 37, 215–230.
Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering. Wiley-Blackwell.
Vermaas, P. E. (1999). A philosopher’s understanding of quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Vermaas, P. E. (2017). The societal impact of the emerging quantum technologies: A renewed urgency to
make quantum theory understandable. Ethics and Information Technology, 19, 241–246.
Watene, K., & Drydyk, J. (Eds.). (2016). Theorizing justice: Critical insights and future directions. Rowman
and Littlefield.
Weiss, D. S., & Saffman, M. (2017). Quantum computing with neutral atoms. Physics Today, 70(7), 44.
Wolbring, G. (2022). Auditing the social of quantum technologies A scoping review. Societies, 12, 41.
Wolf, S. (2019). Overview of the status of quantum science and technology and recommendations. Institute
for Defense Analysis Document D-10709.
Zhu, H., Bowen, Y., Halfaker, A., & Terveen, L. (2018). Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case
study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 21(194), 1–23.
Zliobaite, I. (2017). Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making. Data Mining and Knowledge
Discovery, 31(4), 1060–1089.
Zygelman, B. (2018). A first introduction to quantum computing and information. Dordrecht: Springer.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Ethics of Quantum Computing: An Outline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics of Quantum Computing: An Outline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics of Quantum Computing: An Outline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delft University of Technology

Ethics of Quantum Computing

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

Ethics of Quantum Computing: an Outline

Received: 4 August 2022 / Accepted: 20 June 2023

Keywords Quantum technologies · Computing · Ethics · Cryptography

1.1 Context and Motivation

technology whose development is largely uncertain and often influenced by a rheto-

• Quantum simulations, that is, the simulation of quantum systems, by facilitating

In addition to being an emerging field, QC is also an undeveloped technol-

1.4 How This Helps to Fill the Technical and Regulatory Gaps

3 Generic Ethical Issues in Quantum Computing

In 1982, physicist Richard Feynman suggested that quantum mechanical phenomena

ai ∶ ||ψ >= a0 ||0 > ||+a1 ||1 >

possible output state must be 100%, mathematically expressed in this case as | a0 |

Table 1 The impact of QC on different aspects of understanding of data

Volume High impact: risk of a new data deluge

1. Decoherence and the no-cloning theorem make it impossible to think of informa-

Identity Disintegration of identity understood as the definition of boundaries between individuals

The instability of quantum information is made clearer by two other characteristics

These characteristics pose fundamental ethical problems (Table 2):

3.3 Processes: a New Form of Opacity

4 The Algorithm Design

• Inconclusive evidence (focusing on non-causal indicators can distract attention

the same procedure with them (measuring in this basis, if it is 0, do this, if it is 1, do

5 The Case of Quantum Cryptography

Cryptography is an indispensable means used to protect information in computer

5.3 The Overlapping Consensus

Finding a good balance between privacy and security in an ever-changing context

• Centralized versus decentralized regulation

Abbreviations QT: Quantum technologies; QC: Quantum computing

Author Contribution Not applicable.

Data Availability Not applicable.

Consent for Publication Not applicable.

Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests.

You might also like

1.1 Context and Motivation

1.4 How This Helps to Fill the Technical and Regulatory Gaps

3 Generic Ethical Issues in Quantum Computing

3.3 Processes: a New Form of Opacity

4 The Algorithm Design

5 The Case of Quantum Cryptography

5.3 The Overlapping Consensus