With increased dialogue and networking of intelligence information between these organizations in the electronic component recycling and supply chains, I feel that the SEERA will decrease the supply of counterfeit electronic components,
I just read an article on the Secure E-waste Export and Recycling Act (SEERA) at http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20170207/rep-cook-reintroduces-bill-to-make-it-tougher-to-counterfeit-us-electronics . This bill, introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Paul Cook of California and Democrat Gene Green of Texas, aims to stop the export of e-waste to countries where it is used as source material for counterfeit electronics.
While the electronics industry continues to research stricter testing protocols to mitigate the risk of counterfeit products and to implement quality control practices to help protect the global supply change from this evolving threat, cutting off the supply of source materials is a great step forward. If SEERA passes, non-working equipment would be recycled domestically. Working equipment could be exported. The US Customs and Border Protection would be part of the enforcement by inspecting equipment bound for export to make sure that it is working.
This program set up by SEERA could be even more effective if agencies inside the US Department of State and the US Department of Defense, who are already working to contain the epidemic of counterfeit electronic components, became involved in this process of preventing the export of e-waste.
With increased dialogue and networking of intelligence information between these organizations in the electronic component recycling and supply chains, I feel that the SEERA will decrease the supply of counterfeit electronic components, thereby increasing quality and safety in electronic equipment for consumers and the military alike.
I am looking forward to seeing SEERA move through the House to the Senate and then on to the president for signature.
If you get a chance, I recommend that you read “When it Comes to Counterfeit Part Prevention, Semantics Matter” – a blog post by Kevin Sink. He discusses the need for the revisions to the DFAR regulations that are currently underway.
The DFAR regulations are positive tools detailing how to purchase manage and dispose of components. In addition, the introduction of the AS6171 standard will be an important aid to quality-control testing and providing standardize techniques and practices.
Department of Defense published a new rule aimed at preventing counterfeit electronic parts from entering the military supply chain at any level.
The final version of the rule can be found in the Federal Register as: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts-Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005) https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/02/2016-17956/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-detection-and-avoidance-of-counterfeit-electronic#h-4. The final version was drafted after a period of public commnet. It includes some changes in terminology to match industry standard terms and well as changes in requirements.
I strongly feel that AS6171 will be a paramount aid to the future of quality-control testing and providing standardize techniques and practices. In uncovering counterfeit electronic component product. I also feel participating in these mandatory requirements shows a good faith effort in the purchasing, managing and disposal of the electronic components in question.
This article describes the bill being considered by Congress that would amend existing export administration regulations. The change is that nonworking or non-tested used electronic items would be classified as electronic waste, so that they cannot be exported unless specific conditions are met.
I believe that one of the specific conditions that should be met for any electronic component that is disassembled and prepared for export is that the component be tested with a thorough risk mitigation and counterfeit test program with traceable paperwork results.
Electronic Products and Technology, ept.ca, one of Canada’s Leading Electronics websites published two articles that outline the risks of buying and using counterfeit components. The articles are Why Buy Authentic? The Case Against Counterfeit Products and Protecting Yourself from Counterfeit and Gray Market Components.
In addition to the practices and precautions mentioned in the articles, it is strongly recommended that any components that are purchased without an authentic manufacturers C of C Certificate of compliance should undergo Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts: Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation testing in accordance with SAE Aerospace standard AS6081.
In Xerox Launches Printed Memory Products to Combat Counterfeiting, they describe two new printed electronic label products that can be used to track parts from factory to end-user.
I commend Xerox for this ground breaking endeavor in anti-counterfeit technology.
I feel that this rewritable memory is paramount in tracking a component’s authenticity and how it has been handled during distribution.
The cryptographic security is an inexpensive process and will be very difficult to copy.
I would like to commend JEDEC on issuing JESD243 last month. This standard sets best practices that will make a difference in the ongoing fight to mitigate counterfeit product distribution. You can read JEDEC’s announcement of the standard here.
Not only do I feel it is an outstanding resource to manufacturers but more importantly its defined standards of a product return policy as well as a return verification and prohibition on the restocking of confirmed counterfeit parts is a great asset in tackling the never ending epidemic of counterfeit product distribution.
Three Chinese nationals were arrested for trafficking in stolen Intel and Xilinx chips. A US undercover agent initially expressed interest in buying the electronic components for use on US Navy submarines. Later in the process , the undercover agent expressed concern about being caught using stolen semiconductors. The traffickers then offered up counterfeit parts to him instead of the stolen components.
Stolen components or counterfeit components — either one brings it own set of problems if they enter the US military supply stream and are eventually used in place of authentic parts.
“The Justice Department and our federal law enforcement partners are committed to prosecuting those who would supply our armed forces with counterfeit electronic components, as well as those who attempt to steal sophisticated U.S. military components and distribute them places unknown,” said U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly, in announcing the charges.
Both counterfeit and stolen parts are indeed serious issues,. To read the full article see, http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/fbi-arrests-counterfeit-chip-traffickers-2015-12/
I recently wrote an article for US Tech (published in the Oct, 2014 issue) describing the proper procedures for solvent testing for remarked and resurfaced electronic components and the occurrence of false positive results when a solvent test is applied to the wrong type of electronic component. Examples of false positive results are shown where the Dynasolve and Mineral Spirits tests return false positive results when used on authentic can packaged devices.
While Mineral Spirits testing, Acetone testing, 1- Methyl 2- Pyrrolidone testing and Dynasolve testing have been vital in uncovering many anomalies associated with parts that have been remarked or resurfaced, we show that using these techniques improperly on hermetically sealed ceramic devices or can packages that have not been resurfaced can result in false positives.
NJ MET has developed a lot of expertise in correctly applying the appropriate solvent testing procedures, depending on the type of electronic component being tested. We apply that expertise in all parts of our component testing programs. Thorough testing with the appropriate procedures is necessary to identify counterfeit components and keep them out of the supply chain.
I invite you to join the conversation by commenting below your thoughts and experiences with these testing procedures.
A recently posted article from a UK newsletter warns of the potential dangers of counterfeit electronic parts in IT products. You can read the article here.
This is a very good article in educating the buyer on what they have to do to protect themselves from purchasing counterfeit goods.
While Probrand has developed a good five point checklist for businesses to ensure they aren’t caught up buying counterfeit goods, our company has been successful registering the warranty and checking the product’s designated serial number which can be used to track the authenticity with the manufacturer.
Registering the product and checking the serial number are great communication tools to alert the manufacturer whether there is a non-authentic product out on the market.