|

US Government Fails Counterfeit Detection 101

NO RATINGS
View comments: newest first | oldest first | threaded
Page 1 of 2   Next >   Last >>
Jobrien
User Rank
Stock Keeper
Policy in-place, needs enforcement
Jobrien   9/2/2012 11:09:02 AM
NO RATINGS

The birth-to-grave traceability of all components is specified in Mil Std 130. The problem is that few comply when their product is supposedly "mission critical". The required unique supplier ID (Uid) must be permanently etched onto the part. Variances from the minimum sizes are easily obtained and simply require readers with better then "standard" optics. The system was introduced in 2004 and already has well over 7 million registered items in the system. Don't reinvent the wheel with my tax dollars!!!

owen
User Rank
Stock Keeper
Dr. Diganta Das, CALCE
owen   9/1/2012 10:43:50 AM
NO RATINGS

"One of the ways to ensure that the parts and raw materials are authentic is to have them "marked" at its manufacturing point and let the supply chain have the ability to identify if the received materials are authentic". Verbatim, from Dr. Das' CALCE Seminar on Parts Authentication earlier this year.



owen
User Rank
Stock Keeper
Re: Mandates
owen   8/31/2012 9:11:36 AM
NO RATINGS

" How in the heck can a government agency dictate a mandate to thwart counterfeit while publically reporting ZERO counterfeit product into GIDEP for 2012?" That's just the problem Pam Harbert points out in her article. "a shocking lack of attention to possible counterfeits in the supply chain." It's time, as she states, that "...Levin and his committee continue to watch both industry and government to make sure they clean up their sloppy practices." 



ddeisz
User Rank
Production Synthesizer
Re: Mandates
ddeisz   8/31/2012 8:52:53 AM
NO RATINGS

First of all, I said "sooner and with more cooperation", not superior. Incidence rate for counterfeit is an interesting topic. It kind of gets us back to looking for that explicit list of which parts and who the suppliers were (and buyers). If you look at the public GIDEP reports, you will notice some trends. If you haven't looked at the GIDEP reports, you should. No GIDEP reports available to the normal user of the system were entered by DLA for all of 2012. There might be another area for Suspect Counterfeit reports I can't get to as a non-government employee, but from an industry perspective DLA has entered zero GIDEP reports for 2012. How in the heck can a government agency dictate a mandate to thwart counterfeit while publically reporting ZERO counterfeit product into GIDEP for 2012?

Your quote of "Perhaps it takes a mandate to force industry to get into the game and do something" forced me to take a breath before hitting reply. There is data within the GIDEP reports; stunning data. It's as much about what is in GIDEP as what is missing from GIDEP when you realize what's in there. Dr. Das at CALCE did a presentation within the past week where I think he said it well. I will paraphrase it as "the single biggest problem with counterfeit is a procurement issue". The GIDEP data backs this up and we will be presenting it on 9/12 on an EBN weblog.

therealGman
User Rank
Stock Keeper
Re: Mandates
therealGman   8/31/2012 8:12:04 AM
NO RATINGS

I am curious - you say "Fortunately, there are many other ways to eliminate counterfeit sooner and with more cooperation from industry than this mandate."

If industry had other easier ways to eliminate counterfeits sooner than using Applied DNA markings wy haven't they done so?  What are the other methods to which you refer and why would they be so superior to DNA marking?  If you tell me they have or are implementing the other methods then my question is why then has the incidence rate of counterfeits being introduced into the supply chain exploded?  Perhaps it takes a mandate to force industry to get into the game and do something.

ddeisz
User Rank
Production Synthesizer
Re: Mandates
ddeisz   8/30/2012 9:52:49 PM
NO RATINGS

Owen,

The official responses are coming into DLA now and I have seen some of them. They will be public soon enough. Suffice to say they are almost all negative. DLA does not represent all DoD semiconductor component purchases; actually far from it. The mandate pertains only to DLA purchases. The DLA mandate had no support from the biggest semiconductor manufacturers in the world before going out the door. That's no way to partner with industry. Applied DNA was unsuccessful at selling to the vast majority of the semiconductor companies directly. They took their story and lobbied hard for a mandate "end around" and are now advertising as fast as they can. They have burned bridges in doing so.

One must look at the original intent of this whole fiasco (eliminate and/or dramatically reduce counterfeit) to understand how such a mandate could come into being to begin with. Fantastic intent, very little industry buy-in, followed by mandate. Fortunately, there are many other ways to eliminate counterfeit sooner and with more cooperation from industry than this mandate. DNA marking is not the only way and consequently does not justify a mandate. DNA marking for DLA has supply chain logistics issues that have not been thought all the way through....and the mandate does nothing for that thought process. DNA marking is more than a bottle of special ink and a laser pen for manufacturers ladies and gentlemen. Supply chain logistics are a big problem when it comes to marking parts for DLA.

Last word on this long response....there are easy scenarios where legitimate parts in packages have mysterious handling and no CofC's. DNA marking has done nothing here. What about billions of legitimate legacy parts on shelves today that have no DNA marking? Think about it - most semiconductor components that will be purchased by DLA for the next decade have already been manufactured!

owen
User Rank
Stock Keeper
Re: Mandated DNA markings
owen   8/30/2012 6:51:48 PM
NO RATINGS

Douglas, according to DLA Chief, Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, who was recently interviewed by Defence News Radio, DNA marking of microcircuits and Follow on commodities is one of four major initiatives of the DLA. His entire interview is available on the Federal News Radio website. I believe it was broadcast last Wednesday.

owen
User Rank
Stock Keeper
Re: Mandates
owen   8/30/2012 4:52:07 PM
NO RATINGS

ddelsz, "The semiconductor manufacturers are not going along with the mandate..." From the information I gathered from the DLA (not Applied DNA Sciences) it seemed that the process was inexpensive, easy to incorporate in existing work flows, extremely robust, uncopyable, and indeed going forward. I'd be interested to know which manufacturers are refusing to participate and specifically why. What alternatives do suppliers have? Opt out of doing business with the DoD?

ddeisz
User Rank
Production Synthesizer
Mandates
ddeisz   8/30/2012 1:46:33 PM
NO RATINGS

Regarding the USG failing counterfeit detection 101, the story goes much deeper. Rochester Electronics and Analog Devices will be talking about this in our weblog on 9/12 coming up soon.

Please don't hold your breath for the DNA Mandate. That will be the topic for many blogs going forward. That mandate wasn't well thought out before it left DLA in my opinion. Long-term systems are low-volume systems in comparison to what drives the semiconductor manufacturers. That means a bulk of the purchases have to come through distribution of some kind and not direct sales (volumes are too low for direct sales). This mandate creates all kinds of logistics issues in exchange for what amounts to .5% or less of total semiconductor sales. The semiconductor manufacturers are not going along with the mandate, regardless of Applied DNA advertising. Like I said, not well thought out....like so many mandates.

 

Dan Deisz

Rochester Electronics

Douglas Alexander
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Mandated DNA markings
Douglas Alexander   8/30/2012 1:26:29 PM
NO RATINGS

@Owen, I understand that there are in excess of 100 microcircuits OEMs that will have to mark each chip with the botanical DNA from Applied DNA Sciences. I called them and they have beefed up their employee count and real estate by 50% in anticipation of the business demand that arises from this DLA mandate. We should see this technology proliferating to other electronic components as well. What do you think?

Page 1 of 2   Next >   Last >>


More Blogs from Tam Harbert
Tesla's new gigafactory in Nevada may be located in the U.S. but the organization's supply chain reaches across the globe.
Around the world, various nations are working to create legislation and best practices around eradicating human trafficking from the supply chain.
Location, location, location... Picking the right place to put an electronics distribution warehouse can be a chore. A recent study, though, identifies some little known but promising locales.
Supply chain managers have a wealth of choices when it comes to SCM and procurement software.
Drones are already being used commercially and some not-quite-so-obvious applications for the supply chain are emerging for this hot technology.
Twitter Feed
EBN Online Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EBN Dialogue / LIVE CHAT
EBN Dialogue enables you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Open to the entire EBN community of electronics supply chain experts, these conversations see ideas shared, comments made, and questions asked and answered in real time. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats. Stay tuned and join in!
Archived Dialogues
Live Chat 01/15: CPOs Re-Shape Their Business Roles
Increasingly chief procurement officers (CPOs) are re-shaping their organizational role to focus on creating results far beyond cost controls. A new IBM survey explores how.
Live Chat 11/12: Examining the Cyberthreat to Supply Chains
The number of cyberattacks is on the rise and hackers are targeting the supply chain. Drew Smith, founder and CEO of InfoArmor, will be on hand to discuss the reality of today's threat landscape and what to do about it.