How much of the quantum tech boom is just welfare for physicists?

After reading Law and Policy in the Quantum Age by Chris Hoofnagle and Simson Garfinkel, that’s what I was asking myself. This book, written in a beautiful and informative manner, examines the commercial and policy implications of quantum computing as well other promising quantum technologies like sensing and communications. It left me asking the question that is at the heart of this post. So, I invited Chris Hoofnagle to an interview and came away thinking the answer may be “close to half – and for sure all the quantum projects grounded in fear and envy of the National Security Agency.” Chris’s exchange was a lively and exciting half an hour of policy and futurology. It should not be missed. The book is also a good read.

Also not to be missed: Conservative Catfight II – Now With More Cats. Jamil Jaffer and myself are back to our previous debate on Big Tech regulation. We will now be discussing S.2992, The American Innovation and Choice Online Act. S.2992 was just voted out by the Senate Judiciary committee. There were both supporters and opponents. In short, this bill will impose “no self-preferencing” obligations on large platforms. Gus Hurwitz is joined by Jamil in arguing that this would be a harsh government punishment of some unpopular companies, and not able to protect consumers. Jordan Schneider adds his opinion to highlight that this is nearly the same solution as the Chinese government’s most recent policy change. Platforms are generally procompetitive once they begin, but can be easily abused once established. Therefore only a carefully crafted system will prevent a few companies from gaining enormous political and economic power.

Doubling down on controversy, I ask Nate Jones to explain Glenn Greenwald’s objections to the subpoena practices of Congress’s  Jan. 6 Committee. According to me, the legal arguments by the committee can be summarized as follows: “When Congress made the rules of government, it didn’t mean that they should apply to Congress.” Greenwald has a point when he says that in 1950s, the Supreme Court treated Communists much better than January 6, committee. This is even though the Capitol attack was tangentially connected to it.

Nate, me and a colleague try to determine what Forbes was using to create a scandal out of a regular set metadata subpoenas it sent to WhatsApp. Forbes needs plenty of fluids, and time in quiet rooms for recovery.

Gus quickly explains the meaning of the Biden administration’s revision to the DOJ/FTC merger guidance. In other words, the more that administration attempts to change them, the less respect they will get in court. Jordan and I are puzzled by the focus on medium and small business in China’s most recent five-year plan to the digital economy.

Listen to the 391st Episode in MP3

Subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast via iTunes, Google Play Spotify, Pocket Casts or RSS Feed. The Cyberlaw Podcast welcomes feedback as always. Make sure you engage @stewartbakerYou can follow us at Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to You will receive a Cyberlaw Podcast mug if you suggest a guest!

This podcast is a collection of opinions that the speakers have shared and does not represent the views or clients of any of them.