The U.S. House of Representatives has voted 351-61 to ban federal agencies from buying Chinese-made surveillance cameras.

The measure was passed May 24 as an amendment to House Bill 5515, the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is the funding plan for the military that also maps out a variety of policy priorities. The bill is at least several months away from becoming law, and it must still be considered by the Senate and then by a House-Senate conference committee before final passage. Changes can be made at each stage. It would also have to be signed by President Trump.

The amendment targeting video surveillance cameras was offered by Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, a Missouri Republican. “Video surveillance and security equipment sold by Chinese companies exposes the U.S. government to significant vulnerabilities and my amendment will ensure that China cannot create a video surveillance network within federal agencies,” says Hartzler in a press release.

Companies affected by the ban

The proposed ban appears to lump our industry’s familiar video surveillance players together with other companies that the U.S. government has targeted for security concerns. Also mentioned in the amendment are Hytera Communications, a Chinese digital mobile radio manufacturer previously charged with patent infringement; and ZTE Corp., a Chinese telecommunications company accused of violating trade-sanction agreements and posing a threat to U.S. national security. The bill also mentions Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., a Chinese telecommunications manufacturer previously investigated as a national security threat.The proposed ban appears to lump our industry’s familiar video surveillance players together with other companies that the U.S. government has targeted for security concerns

Two familiar companies in our industry – Hikvision and Dahua – are mentioned in the bill by their full names, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. and Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co. In addition to their branded video lines, the two companies also are the largest providers of OEM/'white label' cameras and video systems that are sold under other brand names, such as Honeywell, Stanley and UTC. The bill specifically mentions the inclusion of white label technology in the ban.

Addressing concerns

In the case of Hikvision, one concern is whether the company is owned by the Chinese government. Hikvision has previously addressed this issue, emphasising its ownership by “a diverse set of private and public entities” with the largest share belonging to a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE).

Hikvision declined to comment for this article. However, the company has published a statement (“Special Bulletin”): “We are actively working to assure our North American stakeholders that Hikvision strictly abides by the laws and regulations of each country in which it operates. We also affirm the fact that we hold our products to the industry’s global cybersecurity standards, including North America.”

The Hikvision statement continues: “As we continue to monitor and further deploy the necessary resources to address this matter over the coming weeks and months, please know that we will vigorously defend Hikvision from dangerous and unproven accusations about the cybersecurity of our products and solutions.”

If SIA decides to take a position based on member feedback, it will occur during the normal legislative process"

Commitment to compliance

Dahua answered our requests for a comment with the following official response: “Dahua Technology is a commercial enterprise with a high level of business integrity. The international company [is] committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in the countries in which it does business.”

The company’s response continues: “Dahua Technology dedicates 10 percent of its revenue to research and development annually. Dahua has designated cybersecurity as a top priority and takes a comprehensive and systemic approach, with complementary and redundant safeguards built into its technology, services and organisational practices. Dahua Technology is positioning itself as a cybersecurity leader within the video surveillance industry.”

The Security Industry Association (SIA) has submitted the House amendment to its government relations committee for review and consideration. “Any recommended position by the government relations committee will be referred to the SIA Executive Committee for their consideration and approval,” says Don Erickson, CEO of SIA. “If SIA decides to take a position based on member feedback, it will occur during the normal legislative process as the bill is considered by the Senate, and then ultimately by a House-Senate conference committee.”

Impact on global video camera supply

Congresswoman Hartzler’s amendment is aimed at “ensur[ing] federal agencies do not purchase Chinese-made surveillance cameras,” according to the press release from her office. Obviously, there are more than just the two mentioned companies manufacturing surveillance cameras in China, so the question becomes whether the intent is to ban all Chinese cameras from government use. Such a proposal would create an even larger issue, given that 60 to 65 percent of the global supply of commercial video cameras are manufactured in China, according to one industry source.60 to 65 percent of the global supply of commercial video cameras are manufactured in China, according to one industry source

The bill does not address the possible use of Chinese-made components in cameras that are assembled elsewhere in the world (but technically are not 'made in China'). “Those types of issues are commonly explained in implementation guidelines that would be created afterwards if the proposed language becomes law,” says Erickson.

The NDAA is unlikely to become law for several months. A version previously passed by the Senate Armed Services committee must be presented to the full Senate, where it can also be amended. Then the House and Senate bills must be reconciled.

Download PDF version

Author profile

Larry Anderson Editor, SecurityInformed.com & SourceSecurity.com

An experienced journalist and long-time presence in the US security industry, Larry is SourceSecurity.com's eyes and ears in the fast-changing security marketplace, attending industry and corporate events, interviewing security leaders and contributing original editorial content to the site. He leads SourceSecurity.com's team of dedicated editorial and content professionals, guiding the "editorial roadmap" to ensure the site provides the most relevant content for security professionals.

In case you missed it

What characteristics do salespeople require in the physical security industry?
What characteristics do salespeople require in the physical security industry?

A basic tenet of sales is ABC – always be closing. But it's a principle that most professional salespeople would say oversimplifies the process. Especially in a sophisticated, high-tech market such as physical security, the required sales skills are much more involved and nuanced. We asked this week's Expert Panel Roundtable: What unique characteristics are required of salespeople in the arena of physical security systems?

Can microchip implants replace plastic cards in modern access control?
Can microchip implants replace plastic cards in modern access control?

A futuristic alternative to plastic cards for access control and other applications is being considered by some corporate users in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The idea involves using a microchip device implanted into a user’s hand. About the size of a grain of rice and provided by Swedish company Biohax, the tiny device employs passive near field communication (NFC) to interface with a user’s digital environment. Access control is just one application for the device, which can be deployed in lieu of a smart card in numerous uses. Biohax says more than 4,000 individuals have implanted the device. Using the device for corporate employees Every user is given plenty of information to make an informed decision whether they want to use the deviceCurrently Biohax is having dialogue with curious corporate customers about using the device for their employees. “It’s a dialogue, not Big Brother planning to chip every employee they have,” says Jowan Österlund, CEO at Biohax. Every user is given plenty of information to make an informed decision whether they want to use the device. Data capture form to appear here! “Proof of concept” demonstrations have been conducted at several companies, including Tui, a travel company in Sweden that uses the device for access management, ID management, printing, gym access and self-checkout in the cafeteria. Biohax is also having dialogue with some big companies in the United Kingdom, including legal and financial firms. Österlund aims to have a full working system in place in the next year or so. A Swedish rail company accepts the implanted chip in lieu of a paper train ticket. They accept existing implants but are not offering to implant the chips. Österlund says his company currently has no plans to enter the U.S. market. The device is large enough to locate easily and extract if needed, and small enough to be unobtrusive Access control credential The device is inserted/injected below the skin between the index finger and the thumb. The circuitry has a 10-year lifespan. The device is large enough to locate easily and extract if needed, and small enough to be unobtrusive. The only risk is the possibility of infection, which is true anytime the skin is pierced, and the risk is mitigated by employing health professionals to inject the chip. Use of the device as an access control credential or any other function is offered as a voluntary option; any requirement by an employer to inject the device would be illegal, says Österlund. It’s a convenient choice that is made “based on a well-informed decision by the customer.” Aversion to needles, for example, would make some users squeamish to implant the device. More education of users helps to allay any concerns: Some 10% of employees typically would agree quickly to the system, but a larger group of 50% to 60% are likely to agree over time as they get more comfortable with the idea and understand the convenience, says Österlund. Protection of information The passive device does not actively send out any signals as you walk. It is only powered up by a reader if a user has access rightsIn terms of privacy concerns, information contained on the device is in physical form and is protected. The passive device does not actively send out any signals as you walk. There is no battery. It is only powered up by a reader if a user has access rights. With use of the device being discussed in the United Kingdom, there has been some backlash. For example, Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has said: “Microchipping would give bosses even more power and control over their workers.” A big misconception is that the chip is a tracking device, says Österlund. It isn’t. “We love people to get informed,” says Österlund. “If they’re scared or apprehensive, they can just read up. It’s not used to control you – it’s used to give you control.”

Ethical consumption: should you buy security products ‘Made in China’?
Ethical consumption: should you buy security products ‘Made in China’?

Should ‘Made in China’ be seen as a negative in security systems and products? It’s an important and complex issue that merits a more detailed response than my recent comment in the Expert Panel Roundtable. For me, there are two sides of the answer to this question: Buying products that have certain negative attributes that are not in alignment with some part of a belief system or company mandate. Buying products that do not perform as advertised or do something that is unacceptable. For integrators and end users making the buying decisions, the drive to purchase products may not be based on either aspect and instead on the product that can do the best job for their business. But for others, a greater emphasis on the ethical implications of purchasing decisions drives decision-making. What is ethical consumption? Ethical consumption is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of ‘positive buying’ in that ethical products are favouredEthical consumption — often called ethical consumerism — is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of ‘positive buying’ in that ethical products are favoured, and products that are ethically questionable may be met with a ‘moral boycott’. This can be as simple as only buying organic produce or as complex as boycotting products made in a totalitarian regime that doesn't offer its citizens the same freedoms that we enjoy in the United States. Consider the goals of the Boston Tea Party or the National Consumers League (NCL), which was formed to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. Some examples of considerations behind ethical consumption include fair trade, treatment of workers, genetic modification, locally made and processed goods, union-made products and services, humane animal treatment, and in general, labour issues and manufacturing practices that take these factors into account. Increase in ethical consumption The numbers show that ethical consumption is on the rise. In a 2017 study by Unilever, 33 percent of consumers reported choosing to buy and support brands that they believe are doing social or environmental good. In the same study, 53 percent of shoppers in the United Kingdom and 78 percent in the United States said they feel better when they buy products that are ‘sustainably’ produced. There’s clear evidence that products from some Chinese companies suffer from cybersecurity vulnerabilities Though the aforementioned question that sparked this conversation centres around concerns with products made in China, there are many other countries where, for example, governments/dictators are extremely repressive to all or parts of their populations, whose products, such as oil, diamonds, minerals, etc., we happily consume. There are also a number of countries that are a threat in terms of cybersecurity. It may be naive and simplistic to single out Chinese manufacturers. Impact on physical security products Product buying decisions based on factors other than product functionality, quality and price are also starting to permeate the security marketplace. While this hasn't been a large focus area from the business-to-business consumption side, it's something that should be considered for commercial security products for a variety of reasons. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating" There’s clear evidence that products from some Chinese companies suffer from cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Last fall, 30 U.S. companies, including Apple and Amazon, were potentially compromised when it was discovered that a tiny microchip in the motherboard of servers built in China that weren't a part of the original specification. According to a Bloomberg report, “This attack was something graver than the software-based incidents the world has grown accustomed to seeing. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating, promising the kind of long-term, stealth access that spy agencies are willing to invest millions of dollars and many years to get.” This, along with many other incidents, are changing the considerations behind purchasing decisions even in the physical security industry. Given that physical security products in general have been lax on cybersecurity, this is a welcome change. Combating tech-specific threats In early January, members of the U.S. Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to help combat tech-specific threats to national security posed by foreign actors and ensure U.S. technological supremacy by improving interagency coordination across the U.S. government. The bill creates the Office of Critical Technologies & Security at the White House, an indication that this issue is of critical importance to a number of players across the tech sector. Members of the U.S. Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to help combat tech-specific threats to national security posed by foreign actors To address a significant number of concerns around ethical production, there are certifications such as ISO 26000 which provides guidance on social responsibility by addressing accountability, transparency, ethical behaviour, respect for stakeholder interests, respect for rule of law, respect for international norms of behaviour and respect for human rights. While still emerging within physical security, companies that adhere to these and other standards do exist in the marketplace. Not buying products vulnerable to cyberattacks It may be counter-productive, even irresponsible, to brand all products from an entire country as unfit for purchasing. Some manufacturers’ products may be ethically questionable, or more vulnerable to cyberattacks than others; so not buying products made by those companies would make sense. The physical security industry might be playing a bit of catch up on this front, but I think we're beginning to see a shift toward this kind of responsible buying behaviour.