Now that's interesting to read. As far as I read about it we currently don't know exactly how quantum computing works, but I might be misinformed here. Anyway an encrypted message is still more secure than a human courier, because just two people (in theory) can know the contents, which would take decades to decipher.
But again, let's see the problem from a different perspective. This is a joke, we are reading a quote about computing from an economist. Clearly there is something that doesn't make any sense here.
---------------------
This was a bit difficult to decipher your overall thought pattern. Going with the part "...an encrypted message is still more secure than a human courier, because just two people (in theory) can know the contents, which would take decades to decipher...." here is a link:
http://news.mit.edu/2016/quantum-computer-end-encryption-schemes-0303. Simply typing Quantum Computing News in your search engine will get you more, but excerpted below: Note:
Bolding is mine.
Because factoring large numbers is so devilishly hard, this “factoring problem” is the basis for many encryption schemes for protecting credit cards, state secrets, and other confidential data. It’s thought that a single quantum computer may easily crack this problem, by using hundreds of atoms, essentially in parallel, to quickly factor huge numbers.
“We show that Shor’s algorithm, the most complex quantum algorithm known to date, is realizable in a way where, yes, all you have to do is go in the lab, apply more technology, and you should be able to make a bigger quantum computer,” says Isaac Chuang, professor of physics and professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. “It might still cost an enormous amount of money to build — you won’t be building a quantum computer and putting it on your desktop anytime soon — but now it’s much more an engineering effort, and not a basic physics question.”
“Shor's algorithm was the first non-trivial quantum algorithm showing a potential of ‘exponential’ speed-up over classical algorithms,” Ritter says. “It captured the imagination of many researchers who took notice of quantum computing because of its promise of truly remarkable algorithmic acceleration. Therefore, to implement Shor's algorithm is comparable to the ‘Hello, World’ of classical computing.”
What will all this eventually mean for encryption schemes of the future?
“Well, one thing is that if you are a nation state, you probably don’t want to publicly store your secrets using encryption that relies on factoring as a hard-to-invert problem,” Chuang says. “Because when these quantum computers start coming out, you’ll be able to go back and unencrypt all those old secrets.”
This was March 2016. If the message was about what building ISIS was in that day so you can say where to attack, yep, encryption works because ISIS won't find out...today. OTOH, if the message was about who and where an asset is working and their mission, a nation-state may find that very useful for another decade and more importantly, it went out into the ether so it was received by all. If the same information had gone by paper and courier and was received/stored properly, the same nation-state (or any other) has to take overt observable actions to get access. That is NOT the same received by all and computers are NOT as safe as paper within the very forseeable future.
It does not matter whether you undernstand quantum physics. It matters that someone does and, as the article points out, can apply that understanding. You can not believe me but you should keep an eye on what is being built in Utah. This is a reality that is coming and you can bet your taxes on it.
