US Bans Export of Tech Used In 3nm Chip Production On Security Grounds (theregister.com) 73
The United States is formally banning the export of four technologies tied to semiconductor manufacturing, calling the protection of the items "vital to national security." The Register reports: Announced Friday (PDF) by the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and enacted today, the rule will ban the export of two ultra-wide bandgap semiconductor materials, as well as some types of electronic computer-aided design (ECAD) technology and pressure gain combustion (PGC) technology. In particular, the BIS said that the semiconductor materials gallium oxide and diamond will be subject to renewed export controls because they can operate under more extreme temperature and voltage conditions. The Bureau said that capability makes the materials more useful in weapons. ECAD software, which aids design for a wide range of circuits, comes in specialized forms that supports gate-all-around field effect transistors (GAAFETs), which are used to scale semiconductors to 3 nanometers and below. PGC technology also has "extensive potential" for ground and aerospace uses, the BIS said.
All four items are being classified under Section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act, which covers the production of advanced semiconductors and gas turbine engines. Those types of technology are also covered by the Wassenaar Arrangement, made in 2013 between the US and 41 other countries, which functions as a broader arms control treaty. "We are protecting the four technologies identified in today's rule from nefarious end use by applying controls through a multilateral regime," Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration Thea D Rozman Kendler said in a statement. "This rule demonstrates our continued commitment to imposing export controls together with our international partners."
The reason for the addition of the four forms of technology to export controls is a change made in May to how the BIS characterizes emerging and foundational technologies. Under the change, such tech was reclassified to be covered by Section 1758. The BIS statement announcing the export ban made no mention of the countries, but recent events make it clear the target is China -- the US has been considering other tech export bans (and investment freezes), recently all of which appeared tailored to target China. Analysts in the Middle Kingdom have claimed the ban would have little short-term impact on China's chipmaking industry as no one in China has yet managed to design chips as advanced as those targeted by the ban.
All four items are being classified under Section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act, which covers the production of advanced semiconductors and gas turbine engines. Those types of technology are also covered by the Wassenaar Arrangement, made in 2013 between the US and 41 other countries, which functions as a broader arms control treaty. "We are protecting the four technologies identified in today's rule from nefarious end use by applying controls through a multilateral regime," Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration Thea D Rozman Kendler said in a statement. "This rule demonstrates our continued commitment to imposing export controls together with our international partners."
The reason for the addition of the four forms of technology to export controls is a change made in May to how the BIS characterizes emerging and foundational technologies. Under the change, such tech was reclassified to be covered by Section 1758. The BIS statement announcing the export ban made no mention of the countries, but recent events make it clear the target is China -- the US has been considering other tech export bans (and investment freezes), recently all of which appeared tailored to target China. Analysts in the Middle Kingdom have claimed the ban would have little short-term impact on China's chipmaking industry as no one in China has yet managed to design chips as advanced as those targeted by the ban.
I think they tried this before, with encryption (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I think they tried this before, with encryption (Score:5, Informative)
I like this bit:
..in February 1993 Zimmermann became the formal target of a criminal investigation by the US Government for "munitions export without a license". At the time, cryptosystems using keys larger than 40 bits were considered munitions within the definition of the US export regulations; PGP has never used keys smaller than 128 bits, so it qualified at that time.
I had to download it from a server in Sweden, which is what everybody who needed it did.
So export controls didn't really work.
Re:I think they tried this before, with encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much. The math and theories of various forms of encryption were widely known in international circles. Writing the code to implement encryption is not a capital intensive endeavor. Zimmerman may have "exported" the PGP source under cover of copyright. But that only facilitated its international interoperability. Had some foreign intelligence service wanted their own encryption tool suite, they could have easily written it from first principles.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at much more recent, and more relevant, examples, they've successfully limited the level and types of encryption used in international versions of large swathes of available software. In a modern age where few users know how to do any differently other than download something else from their app store, which often leads them to install software tailor-made to allow intelligence agencies to monitor them and discover threats.
Obviously, computer experts can simply choose any arbitrary level of tech
Re: (Score:2)
they've successfully limited the level and types of encryption used in international versions of large swathes of available software
Available to you and me. Adversaries in the form of unfriendly governments, criminal cartels, ransomware gangs or kiddie porn distributors can easily tailor encryption software to suit their needs. And that includes turning off or bypassing the hooks built in to satisfy intelligence agencies.
You and I need the standard apps. Because we will be communicating with numerous members of law abiding society with little need (or expectation) of hiding from the police. We just need it to be a standard protocol and
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you had to go to a tech conference and wait the ten or fifteen minutes it took in the 90s to come across a geek wearing a t-shirt with the RSA formula printed on it.
Re:I think they tried this before, with encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption export controls actually prevented other countries from buying such technology. From that point of view it worked.
In the long run, it had the opposite effect because companies developed encryption software outside of America to avoid the controls. So America lost market share and lost expertise.
If you were starting a company to produce high-bandgap semiconductors, would you locate it in America, where your market is limited to America? Or would you manufacture elsewhere, so your market is the whole world, including America?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if the encryption is so good that we won't sell it, or so bad that we will, either way nobody is going to use it and they will have to develop their own.
Re: (Score:1)
Coincidence (Score:1)
I don't really believe in interfering higher powers ... but it can't just be a coincidence that I happen to be eating fish and chips and an article on chips appears on slashdot. Maybe Jesus is real and trying to tell me stuff. Also, why now?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it seems to be UK Jesus that is interfering in your experience, so you're basically screwed. Time to keep a stiff upper lip while you're made a martyr that achieves a minor symbolic victory for some vanishingly small cause.
Hmm... (Score:1)
From the brief: " Analysts in the Middle Kingdom have claimed the ban would have little short-term impact on China's chipmaking industry as no one in China has yet managed to design chips as advanced as those targeted by the ban."
Isn't that the point of the ban, so they can't buy it, but there's nothing to stop them from eventually developing it. I mean, really, are you saying that Europeans and Americans are smarter than the Chinese in developing this tech? I'm sure the Chinese will do it on their own.
Re: (Score:1)
China doesn't invent. They just steal and save the R&D expense. All the smart Chinese moved to another country leaving behind only those to scared of the Chinese threats. Back in the day the Russians held entire family's hostage to make sure their top tier scientists could not leave the country. I'm sure China uses the same playbook today.
Re: Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
If u want to stop this, then:
1) control the flow of Chinese students to the west.
2) control the grad students doing R&D in America. Most Chinese profs hire check nese grads that then take the tech back to China ( many times, illegally ).
3) look at the diversity regulations. Those are killing us when applied to tech.
4) finally, take spying as a serious concern. It is constantly happening.
Until these changes happen, this bill will have no real use.
Re: (Score:1)
look at the diversity regulations.
LOL. Without "diversity regulations" All your top students and researchers would be Chinese instead of just a majority. "diversity regulations" is what lets in white people who got a lower entrance score than their Chinese competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some seriously ignorant blathering. Foreign students are accepted into a different pool than domestic students, and in many cases, also a different pool than in-State students. All they can do is fill up the foreign slots, so there are less Europeans.
As for researchers, there is also not an unlimited pool of residency visas for academics. Nor does every institution hire solely based on publishing count. Many researchers have other academic duties than publishing, and those have a variety of skill req
Re: Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
England enacted all kinds of export controls in the 1800s because those damn colonials (Americans) kept stealing industrial inventions. That worked wonderfully to cripple American industrialization and even today the United States is a minor country compared to the industrial and technological might of Great Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
England enacted all kinds of export controls in the 1800s because those damn colonials (Americans) kept stealing industrial inventions. That worked wonderfully to cripple American industrialization and even today the United States is a minor country compared to the industrial and technological might of Great Britain.
And The Queen sent Prince Hairball over to The Colonies to keep an eye on them from his luxurious residence in that hot bed of theft called California.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, really, are you saying that Europeans and Americans are smarter than the Chinese in developing this tech?
Smarter? Nope. Freer? Yep. It affects creativity.
Americans aren't smarter, and certainly aren't better educated, but our country does grant citizenship to people who it believes will provide a competitive advantage.
I'm sure the Chinese will do it on their own.
I'm sure they won't. Why bother when you can copy? It's been working for them so far, why change? What's the advantage of having a few of something first over having a whole bunch of something slightly later?
wow (Score:2)
I didn't think 3nm was possible.
Re:wow (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't think 3nm was possible.
For chip production or in general? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
3nm, or as many guys refer to it - 6 inches.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think 3nm was possible.
Why not? Some underlying physics misunderstanding or are you not paying attention to the roadmaps? Samsung has started commercial production of 3nm 2 months ago using GAA. TSMC has developed 3nm technology still on classic FinFET and they expect commercial scale production within months. Both companies have 2nm by 2025 using GAA on their roadmaps and have a good history of meeting their targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?.
I think the blame falls on articles like this one [semiengineering.com] from 2018. They say stuff like "In fact, 3nm and beyond may never happen at all". Sometimes I feel like the chip makers float stories about how impossible a future tech might be so they can tell their investors how "ground breaking" their 3nm process that "shouldn't even exist" is.
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon atom is ~.3nm wide. A 3nm feature is like 10 atoms across. If the features get much smaller, they will be smaller than atoms.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Those aren't actual feature sizes.
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly because of the size of atoms. A carbon atom is ~.3nm wide. A 3nm feature is like 10 atoms across. If the features get much smaller, they will be smaller than atoms.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably isn't. "3 nm" is a marketing term, not the actual feature size. It's supposed to mean "equivalent to 3 nm if we kept making old-style 2D transistors."
Yes, increasing evolution pressure is smart... (Score:3)
But only if you do not understand evolution. Which to be fair is a real possibility in anything the US does. In actual reality, this leads to the ones being put under pressure to evolve faster or to develop alternate sources.
Wow, I didn't know we still made things! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Fair enough, but the constitution .. there's people that enforce that.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. LOOOOOOOL. Or, you know, maybe the constitution is a document that constructs the general facade of republicanism and allows the rulers to rule as much as they want without putting targets on their backs. The president gets pretty much all the powers of a monarch in the event of a nice crisis. I wonder if we'll be facing any of those in the near future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can stop you from communicating a new idea to everyone, before it goes on the list. But if you communicate it to the government and ask them for patent protection, you may well find your technology export restricted. It's up to you which route you want to take, the profitable and controlled one, or the open and free one.
Also need ban on manufacturing 3nm overseas (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of companies claim to be able to segregate the design from the manufacturing facilities, and create their chips and circuits in China, but keep the actually technology and design secret. That of course is complete horseshit. I started looking at this after a conversation (in first class) while flying out of Denver, with a guy who has a company doing contract manufacturing in China. That was his line: we make sure the manufacturing and technical details are completely separate. Turns out there are a lot of those twats who say stupid shit like that, basically lying as if it were even possible. And so many people who want to believe them with dollar signs in their eyes greenlight it (obviously I'm talking about politicians).
Re: (Score:2)
China has a 7nm fabrication facility, but they cannot quickly turn out new chip designs like TSMC. The masking process is very difficult for 7nm and sure you can develop a chip with mediocre yields, but the time it takes to make the next iteration is very long. It's concerning to the the USA that they got this tech at all, but they actually aren't very far along with it. TSMC is moving to 3nm now, 5nm is mature and new designs are very quick to production.
Intel is behind a little, and running on a 10n
Go read the munitions list. (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read the munitions list. If almost anything mentioned in there as banned actually existed society would be many, many times better.
It bans things like air filters that remove 99.9% of diesel fumes such that the air can be re-breathed over and over in sealed environments for tanks. It bans 3d 6-axis fillament weaving machines that supposedly are not possible to make.
It bans shape changing blades on aircraft and helicopters, like that silent one we got BinLaden with that crashed and we spent huge efforts to blow it shreds? (because its illegal to have but we had it)
That treaty basically alludes to a secret amazing science capability that makes me sick because it isnt shared with society. Filters that would solve pollution issues but we pretend they dont exist.
Did you know it bans diesel engines with super high outputs? Gas with its horrible knock issues limits itself but diesel can actually scale up to such high outputs per liter that they needed to ban it.
Imagine society having diesel engines making over 2000 horsepower per liter. We would only need small lightweight 0.1 liter engines with outputs this good. Embarrasing F1 engines.
If this crap existed, we should have it. But its hidden behind secret military uses that never benefit mankind. If it doesn't exist then why are there pages in these treaties calling out these limits as illegal? Why are these limits raised from old 2006 revisions of the treaty to now if this stuff doesnt exist?
Encryption is allowed on any "off the shelf commercial cpu" but NOT on military designed chips. If there were no backdoor then why call this out? Why ban Encryption with user adjustable parameters besides keys? Well it makes supercomputers in Utah less useful if they cant crack Encryption made the same through regulation.
Go read the Wassenaar munitions list. Its amazing what is banned. Its the one time secret advances are discussed out in the open between nations. It DIRECTLY shows what they have developed in secret with your tax dollars while you choke on fumes in the street.
Read and be pissed.
Re:Go read the munitions list. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
It bans what doesn't exist because treaties are slow, and technology is fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The list shouldn't be interpreted as what secret tech we have, but maybe where expert "futurists" predict technology will go.
Wouldn't surprise me if some of it exists, though! I bet DARPA is a fun place to work.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be a ruse: We ban stuff that doesn't exist to make the commies think we have it.
Re: (Score:2)
(because its illegal to have but we had it)
Your reading comprehension is too low for you to get away with even one sentence of commentary. You don't understand any of this. So slow down, cowboy.
Everything you're blathering about is either incorrect, or has a good (and frankly, obvious) reason to be on the list. Try to figure out what teh fuck is going on before you start bellyaching about you didn't understand it yet.
China says Thanks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this crap existed, we should have it. But its hidden behind secret military uses that never benefit mankind.
If it existed you would have it. Munitions list control *export* only.
Read and be pissed.
I am pissed that someone with such little understanding of export laws got modded up.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine society having diesel engines making over 2000 horsepower per liter.
What the heck are you talking about? 1 horsepower = 746 W, which is a measurement of power. 2000 HP is just under 1.5 MW. They make diesel generators that powerful [generatorsource.com] using 106.5 gal/hr of diesel fuel. 1 liter of diesel contains 38 MJ, or about 10 kWh of energy. You're not using consistent units. One liter per what length of time?
Re: (Score:2)
US also wants to stop ASML from selling to China (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, it's not a secret that the US is trying to hurt the CCP economically.
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands (which is actually larger than Holland, btw, just like the US is larger than New York and most people here are not Yankees) is a close ally of the US. The story isn't about the US "pressuring" them, it is about the US asking them, and explaining to them why it is important.
Which is all that is needed, because we have shared security and business goals.
Re: US also wants to stop ASML from selling to Chi (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, SuperDerp, you go to the Netherlands and tell them what to do, I'm sure they'll be shocked they were doing it all wrong.
Re:US also wants to stop ASML from selling to Chin (Score:4)
Which is all that is needed, because we have shared security and business goals.
Sorry, but much of the world has stopped taking the USA's word at face value. The USA asked and *pressured*. They have been doing so since 2018. Where did that get them? Well China made up 16% of ASML's revenue in 2021. And in 2021 after repeated talks and visits by USA officials to the Netherlands they finally relented and banned only one specific technology from being exported.
close ally of the US
You don't normally start trade wars with close allies. You don't normally spy on close allies. Europe is not a close ally, they are a strategic one at best, and the Netherlands isn't in any specific alliance with the USA beyond NATO like e.g. The Five Eyes, AUKUS, or the FPDA.
It's a good idea/ (Score:2)
3nm chips are so small that they easily get lost (Score:2)
And you wouldn't want that with encryption embedded on that 3nm.
This here (Score:2)
is where we used to keep the horse. Nice bolts, ain't they?
Please, enlighten me... (Score:2)
...smaller is more "dangerous"?
I mean... 7nm chips are more "hackable" than 3nm?
What do they understand as "security" because, in my ignorance, apart from shorter distances between semiconductor there should be no other difference... (apart from cooling design).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert in this area, but based on publically available information chips built using the 3nm process will use about 30% less power than the current generation for the same performance. All depending on which hype you believe.
The security concerns come with the fact that they are built using more durable materials insteady of silicon. So they could be better able to withstand the high g-forces which come with being fired from a howitzer. But given several countries can already build smart munition
TSMC (Score:1)
Given that the world leader in chip manufacturing is TSMC in Taiwan, how is this going to work? The US has had trouble just trying to stop Intel moving their chip fabrication to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the world leader in chip manufacturing is TSMC in Taiwan, how is this going to work?
Given the state of tension between China and Taiwan, what causes you to imagine that they are going to hand to China the data that would make them irrelevant? Are you new?
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think we can stop China invading and just taking it, or infiltrating Taiwan and stealing it.
It won't matter (Score:2)
The tech is going to be stolen anyway. It's typical of a lot of laws. Ban this or that, prohibit this or that, then beg for votes because nothing is going to stop a criminal from doing whatever they want.
Spies inside (Score:2)