2018.04.08 08:53:48 (982874132273606656) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (981224310831505408):
Let me see if I understand. A reader in your world, facing a statement that clearly says X, goes reading through the entire paper that contains the statement to figure out whether there are admissions that X isn't actually true, and then reinterprets the statement accordingly?
2018.03.30 11:00:51 (979644612943011840) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979643285017907200):
(@IDQuantique 2016 http://marketing.idquantique.com/acton/attachment/11868/f-0060/1/-/-/-/-/Understanding%20Quantum%20Cryptography.pdf) The claim of “absolute security” this marketing document very problematic, because 1) it is addressed to non-specialists 2) they’re well aware of the quantum hacking problem, and is involved in many hacking work (eg ref [14]) 5/5
2018.03.31 20:46:37 (980154414727073794) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979644612943011840):
So you're agreeing that the 2016 claim of QKD security being "guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics" is wrong, but you're saying that the 2015 claim of QKD security being "guaranteed by the laws of physics" means something different and correct?
2018.04.03 19:24:55 (981221018743328769) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
I object on "absolute security", not on "guaranteed by the {fundamental,} laws of physics"
2018.04.03 19:38:00 (981224310831505408) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (981221018743328769):
The "guaranteed by the laws of physics", as I already told you, has a different meaning than you claim, as clearly stated in the full text of the papers you cite (except the marketing document)