Loading summary
Transcript25 lines
- [00:02]
WhatsApp Marketing Team
On WhatsApp, no one can see or hear your personal messages. Whether it's a voice call message or sending a password to WhatsApp, it's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat or trading those late night voice messages, that could basically become a podcast, your personal messages stay between you, your friends and your family. No one else, not even us. WhatsApp message privately with everyone.
- [00:37]
Stephen Overle
Hey, welcome back to POLITICO Tech. I'm your host, Stephen Overle. And on this show, I break down tech, politics and policy with the people shaping our digital future. A fun programming note to start us off. This week marks two years since we launched this podcast. Whether you've been here from the beginning or you're just tuning in now, thank you for all of your support. Now, Virginia Congressman Suhas Subramaniam has been on Capitol Hill for all of six months, but he's one of the few lawmakers with a tech pedigree. He served as a tech policy advisor to President Barack Obama back when Washington was really first coming to terms with artificial intelligence. And now he's introducing a bill that aims to prepare the federal government for quantum computing, an emerging type of computing that will be far faster and more powerful than supercomputers today. And experts warn it will make our most sensitive data more vulnerable. On the show today, Subrahmaniam and I talk about the cybersecurity risks that await in a post quantum world plus where he thinks the Trump administration's AI agenda is falling short. Here's our conversation. Congressman, welcome to POLITICO Tech.
- [02:12]
Suhas Subramaniam
Thank you for having me.
- [02:14]
Stephen Overle
So I want to start by sort of breaking down this issue that you're looking to address. I mean, quantum computing feels in some ways like this far off technology, but it is developing fast. And I am hearing from cybersecurity experts that warn it is going to make our data more vulnerable. Can you, like, lay out the problem here as you see it?
- [02:35]
Suhas Subramaniam
Sure. You know, right now, encryption is a really key method that helps us protect data and protect really vulnerable information. And so we understand encryption as sort of this foolproof system of protecting really important things, whether it's in the government or whether it's in the private sector. And quantum computing, you know, essentially challenges that whole model. And what we don't want to do is get to a place where the bad guys can use quantum to break encryption and able to steal valuable information or render the way we protect information obsolete, essentially. And you think of very prominent examples. I mean, we had someone come to our committee and talk about how quantum computing could essentially break the encryption that protects Bitcoin, for instance, and think of how large industry that has become. Right. And essentially what we're trying to do is be prepared for a post quantum world and continue to be a leader in quantum computing, both in terms of, obviously supporting the research needed to further the industry, but also being prepared for the risks and for what could happen when we get to a post quantum world.
- [04:12]
Stephen Overle
Right. I mean, the dynamic you're describing there, which we've seen in many other tech disciplines too, is kind of this race between, like, the good guys and the bad guys. Right. It's like, can the good guys develop technology faster than, you know, to. Than the bad guys to sort of outwit them and put some of these risks to bed? You have this new bill now with Congressman John McGuire that is sort of aimed at quantum preparedness, addressing this cryption issue. What is the aim here?
- [04:42]
Suhas Subramaniam
Yeah, you know, in national security, we have this idea of readiness. We don't know when a war could happen. We want to be ready in case something happens. Right. In case we're attacked. And it's the same thing here with technology. We want to be ready in case quantum computing gets to a place where, you know, it can break different encryption methods like rsa. And so in order to be ready, we have to make some investments, we have to do some research, we have to work with the private sector to help everyone get ready. And, you know, there are post quantum encryption methods already out there, and at the federal level, we're already working with agencies on, you know, using encryption methods that quantum cannot break to our best knowledge. And so it's really about making sure that we're ready. And, you know, I think five years ago, a lot of people would have said that, you know, quantum computing is not anywhere close to being able to break traditional encryption methods.
- [05:53]
Stephen Overle
Right.
- [05:54]
Suhas Subramaniam
But the way the. That it has advanced over the past five to 10 years, you know, it could come sooner rather than later. And we want to be ready as a country and be able to essentially ensure that that's not a calamitous event in any sort of way.
- [06:13]
Stephen Overle
You know, I remember a few years ago now when your, your colleagues, you know, Nancy Mason, Ro khanna had a bill aimed at quantum cybersecurity preparedness. And I guess it raises the question for me, you know, what can Congress really do here to move the needle? Because obviously you can sort of study and commission reports on the problem. Does that get us to a point where we're actually safer where our data is actually more secure.
- [06:41]
Suhas Subramaniam
Yeah. I've been in Congress for about six months now, and so new. But what I've learned very quickly is that when Congress brings its attention to something, it's almost a signal to both the private sector as well as research institutions, and certainly to federal agencies that it's something that's important to us and important to this country. In this case. I want us as a country to be ready for brain risks that quantum computing poses, because then there won't be the consternation about supporting quantum computing breakthroughs and supporting research around quantum computing. I saw this quite a bit. I was a technology advisor in the Obama White House. And people didn't want to make investments in AI times because they weren't sure what AI would mean to the workforce or to the way we live our lives just generally. Right. And even now, you still see that and hear that fear of the challenges AI brings. And so I want us to be ready for any technological breakthrough and the challenges that any technology poses, because we also know that they have immense potential to be helpful and to help us as a country, as a planet.
- [08:15]
Stephen Overle
Is this a place where you ultimately see a need for Congress to potentially regulate in. In some way just because, you know, with cybersecurity, Washington has typically shied away from regulation. You know, we have a lot of kind of voluntary guidelines and frameworks and, and things of that nature. But even with those things in place, you know, breaches and hacks persist. And so it raises the question to me if, like, regulation is necessary in order to get more accountability and more liability around these problems.
- [08:48]
Suhas Subramaniam
Yeah, I don't know if there needs to be any additional regulation right now. I think as we see quantum computing grow in uses, I think we'll start to see where we need to fit in. I generally try not to over regulate because then you're kind of cutting off some of that potential and then there's less investment. But certainly, you know, any risks that a technology poses, you have to get ahead of it as best you can. In this case, you know, I see quantum as, you know, right now, its role is quite limited. And in the future, again, if we see that bad actors have the ability to break normal encryption methods, I think we have to at the very least let people know that if their data is encrypted using rsa, that there are tools out there to break that type of encryption and that we, whoever promises that that encryption is unbreakable when they're carrying someone's data, they should be liable. Right. And so certainly there needs to be some level of regulation at a certain point and I think this bill is a good start. Basically we're trying to come out a starting place of we want to know when there is a breakthrough. We'd like someone to report that and we'd also like to know what's happening to prepare for that breakthrough where standard encryption can be broken by quantum computing. And we want to see what we can do in the meantime to be helpful to helping guide people towards encryption in a post quantum world.
- [10:50]
Abercrombie Advertiser
Abercrombie's viral denim sale is back and Spotify listeners get an extra 15% off with code Spotify AF. Abercrombie is known for their denim with 30 to 50% off all jeans. Find out how denim should fit. Shop the viral denim sale in the Abercrombie app online or in stores. Valid in stores and online through August 11, 2025 in US and Canada except excludes clearance price reflects discount code. Valid in US and Canada through August 11, 2025. Exclusions apply. See details online.
- [11:23]
Stephen Overle
You mentioned that you were a tech advisor in the Obama White House, and I knew you were there at the end of his term, which is when the Obama administration really rolled out its plans around artificial intelligence and predictions for the impact that technology would have. I'm curious with that perspective, what you made of the Trump administration's recent AI action plan and sort of the vision that they have outlined for American dominance in AI.
- [11:51]
Suhas Subramaniam
Sure. There's a lot of things in there that are bipartisan that I think are good ideas. Anything we can do to invest in basic research, anything we can do to create partnerships with different institutions that are studying different parts of AI, as well as, you know, trying to, you know, look at this idea of what AI is going to mean for the workforce as well as what it's going to mean long term for different industries. There's some good ideas there, but, you know, there is some also really bad ideas in there. I'll give you one example. You know, this idea of algorithmic bias has been out there for a while, right. You know, you're using an algorithm to analyze and create using that data set and there's certain biases within the data set or in the way the algorithm analyzes it, you get a certain result. Right. And so we want to make sure that we are at least aware of algorithmic bias. And that's, I think, bipartisan. What I didn't like was what they consider bias. Right. It became very political at times, like, yeah, you know, is DEI their mind. Anything related to diversity is bias. So, you know, it got very political in certain parts of that report. And I think that's unfortunate because this doesn't need to get political like that. And certainly we've seen other countries use AI to try to control their people or control a certain narrative. And, and I think that's the worst thing that could possibly happen is AI being weaponized in that way. And so that's something I'm certainly going to speak out against.
- [13:36]
Stephen Overle
I think an interesting point, they definitely did bring in this idea of kind of woke AI models that did get very political in general. We're seeing from this administration, at least rhetorically, sort of an anti regulatory bent, especially when it comes to technology. And in some ways this is a shift from even a year ago when what we heard off the Hill talking about artificial intelligence and the potential need for some sort of legislation. When you look at kind of how AI has developed, what we know now about some of the risks, where do you sort of stand on the need for some sort of AI regulation?
- [14:15]
Suhas Subramaniam
Yeah, I think AI, like any other technology or product, you know, there should be reasonable guardrails in place. I would say that this administration, though, has been regulatory in a different way. They maybe aren't passing regulations or issuing rules at agencies or passing bills, but they are playing a very heavy hand in the AI industry and in other industries, including blockchain and crypto. Right. And so I'll give you an example. The administration has very much favored Grok and Palantir. And these are run by folks who are very close or have been very close to the president. And they're not necessarily the best tools. And they're also, when you look at this report, for instance, you see that they want a certain type of AI and they want an AI that is biased towards what they want. I think that's playing a very heavy hand. That's more than just a regulation that's trying to shape the future of AI in a way that kind of bends to their political will. And they have no problem with companies using AI if it fits their agenda or fits the President's agenda. But then they have a problem with companies using AI if it doesn't. And so, you know, and you know, if you combine that with what you're seeing in the, you know, private sector, for instance, controlling which companies can emerge, you know, through threats, controlling which institutions of higher education can, you know, their admission standards and things like that, I think this administration is very much playing a heavy hand in the future. Of technology development.
- [16:14]
Stephen Overle
Is there a counterweight to that, then, for you and your colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle? I mean, without control of Congress, there are certain limitations, obviously, but I wonder if you see a way for you all to push back on some of what this administration is doing in the tech policy space.
- [16:32]
Suhas Subramaniam
Sure. While we're on the wrong side of a trifecta, and while we're in the minority, I think we have to be very vocal about what this administration is doing to control the technology sector and control industry generally. I don't think that's very popular, actually, with a lot of people. And so I think we have to call it out for what it is, which is the administration trying to control different sectors, including the tech sector, and then moving forward, as we're able to either build bipartisan consensus or else get back in the majority, either at the federal level in two years or at the state level. We have an election in Virginia this November, where I represent. I think we have to make sure that that's not possible for either party in the future.
- [17:27]
Stephen Overle
I know that the Department of Government Efficiency is something that has been on your mind, that you spent a lot of attention on, given the cuts that have been made to federal agencies and the determinations of federal personne. There's a component of DOGE that includes bringing new technology into the government. And just before our call, I was reading an announcement that the General Services Administration, for instance, is bringing OpenAI's technology, you know, ChatGPT into federal agencies. I wonder if you see that as a good thing, because, you know, on the one hand, obviously there's some questions raised by this technology from a security standpoint, from a bias standpoint, you know, the. Some of the political issues that you're just talking about. It also has potential upsides like certain efficiencies and things. I wonder how you kind of look at the application of AI in the federal government.
- [18:21]
Suhas Subramaniam
When I was a technology advisor in the administration, the Obama administration actually transitioned a lot of our work to the first Trump administration, and the use of AI in government was seen as a good thing. AI had a lot of promise, and we could use it to help deliver a better product and better services to the American people using their taxpayer dollars and save them a lot of money, too. And so the same people who were delivering pizzas using a pizza app in five minutes could deliver those Social Security benefits that are taking forever to deliver to people, as an example. But the second Trump administration, I have serious concerns about the way it's using AI. They've already used AI through DOGE to find anything related to diversity or equity or inclusion and fire anyone and stop any program related to that. The problem is, I heard from one person, for instance, who was working on crop diversity and had nothing to do with DEI but had the word diversity in it, and they stopped that program as just an example. So I'm not impressed with their AI right now, and I'm not impressed with the way they're using it. AI is most effective when you have a person who is working hand in hand with that technology and can correct some of the errors and guide it in the right way. And it seems like that wasn't happening much. And they're firing a lot of the people who'd be able to implement this really well. They're chasing away the rest who'd be able to come to the public sector and create really good AI tools that the federal government could really use to make things better. So I'm not impressed with their AI right now. I'm very pessimistic about the way this specific administration is using AI. I think long term, we absolutely should use AI and any technology tool possible to make government services better, stronger, more efficient. But right now, the opposite is happening with the way this administration is using technology tools.
- [20:33]
Stephen Overle
Listen, Congressman, thanks for being here on Politico Tech.
- [20:36]
Suhas Subramaniam
Thank you. I appreciate it.
- [20:39]
Stephen Overle
That's all for this week's Politico Tech. If you enjoy Politico Tech, please subscribe and recommend the show to a friend or colleague. And for more tech news, subscribe to our newsletters, Digital Future Daily and Morning Tech. Our producer is Normal Malaikal. I'm Steven Overle. See you back here next week.