Why quantum compression can never replace quantum encryption

Appendix Q: "Shisselung"

Q.1 Definition: What is "Shisselung"?

The term "Shisselung"—a provocative neologism combining "encryption" and the colloquial expression "fool"—symbolizes the illusion of security or a protective mechanism that, in reality, provides a false sense of security. In quantum mechanical contexts, "securing" refers to those practices or technologies that are falsely perceived as secure or protected – especially when compression is mistakenly interpreted as encryption.

Q.2 The Fallacy of Quantum Compression as a Security Mechanism

2.1 The Misconception

A common misconception is that quantum compression, especially unitary reduction through coherence extraction, would automatically provide protection against information access. But this is conceptually and physically wrong.

Example:
A perfectly compressed qubit state is only represented more efficiently – but not protected. Without active obfuscation or state randomization measures, an attacker can decode the same compressed state once the basis or structure is known.

Q.3 Incompatibility of Goals: Efficiency vs. Secrecy

Conclusion: The goals often contradict each other. Compression reduces redundancy, while encryption uses redundancy to enable error detection and masking.

Q.4 Physical Reasons: Quantum Information Is Not a Classical Container

4.1 No "Container Thinking"

In classical computing, it is possible to simultaneously compress and encrypt data through encapsulation. Quantum information is not a packet that can be arbitrarily layered. Any intervention in a quantum state fundamentally influences it.

4.2 No-Cloning Theorem

A central reason why compression cannot serve as encryption is the no-cloning theorem. It prohibits the copying of unknown quantum states. A compression scheme must therefore always be completely reversible and lossless—while encryption often relies on masking and non-reproducibility.

Q.5 The Danger of "Shipping" in practice

In practice, these misunderstandings lead to security vulnerabilities:

• Example 1: Compressed states in quantum clouds
  If compressed quantum registers are processed in the cloud without additional encryption, an attacker with knowledge of the mapping can reconstruct the contents.

• Example 2: Entanglement Compression as Deception
  Partially compressed entanglement can appear to conceal data, but can be reconstructed through recombinative inverse regression – without leaving any classical traces.

Q.6 Recommendation: Force separation of compression and encryption

To avoid "scrambling," a strict separation of both processes is required:

1. Compress first (Schumacher, etc.)

2. Then encrypt (e.g., with a quantum one-time pad or teleportation-based)

This sequence is also in theCausal space correct, since subsequent compression of encrypted states could destroy their random structure or even enable decryption.

Q.7 Conclusion: Compression is NOT protection - it is an invitation

Anyone who uses quantum compression as a security measure without proving real encryption is deceiving themselves and opening backdoors for advanced attackers - especially those with access to the compression algorithms.

"Encryption" is not a technology - it is a dangerous mistake.

Cited concepts

• Schumacher, B.: Quantum Coding Theory

• Bennett, C. & Brassard, G.: BB84 protocol

• Gottesman, D.: Quantum Error Correction and Encryption

• Nielsen & Chuang: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information

Would you also like to see a diagram showing a quantum encryption chain with/without encryption?