Senate Bill Eyes New Security Features on Chips to Prevent Export Diversion
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced a bill last week that would require export-controlled advanced computing chips to contain location verification mechanisms to prevent their diversion to “adversaries” such as China.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The mechanisms would have to be installed within six months of the enactment of Cotton’s bill, the Chip Security Act. Chip exporters would have to notify the Bureau of Industry of Security if their products were diverted from their intended locations or were tampered with. The Commerce and Defense departments would have to study other potential chip security mechanisms and consider whether to require their use.
“Implementing chip security mechanisms will improve compliance with the export control laws of the United States, assist allies and partners with guarding computing hardware, and enhance protections from bad actors looking to access, divert, or tamper with advanced integrated circuits and computing hardware,” the bill says.
The legislation, which was referred to the Senate Banking Committee, also calls for looking at how improved chip security could lead to the easing of certain export restrictions. “Implementing chip security mechanisms may help with the detection of smuggling or exploitation of advanced integrated circuits and computing hardware, thereby allowing for increased flexibility in export controls and opening the door for more international partners to receive streamlined and larger shipments of advanced computing hardware,” the bill says.
Some researchers have urged U.S. chip companies to build location trackers or other hardware into their products (see 2503100017 and 2401080060). But BIS officials said last year that they weren’t ready to mandate on-chip security devices because the technology needed further study (see 2403270047).