 the U.S. government and Silicon Valley somehow mustered the funding and political will to do that, insisting that products sold to U.S. consumers or the U.S. government be made only with components made here in the U.S.A. would massively drive up the cost of all forms of technology. Consumers would almost certainly balk at buying these way more expensive devices. Years of experience has shown that consumers aren’t interested in paying a huge premium for security when a comparable product with the features they want is available much more cheaply.

Indeed, noted security expert Bruce Schneier calls supply-chain security “an insurmountably hard problem.”

“Our IT industry is inexorably international, and anyone involved in the process can subvert the security of the end product,” Schneier wrote in an opinion piece published earlier this year in The Washington Post. “No one wants to even think about a US-only anything; prices would multiply many times over. We cannot trust anyone, yet we have no choice but to trust everyone. No one is ready for the costs that solving this would entail.”

The Bloomberg piece also addresses this elephant in the room:

“The problem under discussion wasn’t just technological. It spoke to decisions made decades ago to send advanced production work to Southeast Asia. In the intervening years, low-cost Chinese manufacturing had come to underpin the business models of many of America’s largest technology companies. Early on, Apple, for instance, made many of its most sophisticated electronics domestically. Then in 1992, it closed a state-of-the-art plant for motherboard and computer assembly in Fremont, Calif., and sent much of that work overseas. Over the decades, the security of the supply chain became an article of faith despite repeated warnings by Western officials. A belief formed that China was unlikely to jeopardize its position as workshop to the world by letting its spies meddle in its factories. That left the decision about where to build commercial systems resting largely on where capacity was greatest and cheapest. “You end up with a classic Satan’s bargain,” one former U.S. official says. “You can have less supply than you want and guarantee it’s secure, or you can have the supply you need, but there will be risk. Every organization has accepted the second proposition.”

Another huge challenge of securing the technology supply chain is that it’s quite time consuming and expensive to detect when products may
the U.S. government and Silicon Valley somehow mustered the funding and political will to cause that, insist that products sold to U.S. consumers or the U.S. politics be made only with components have here in the U.S.A. would massively drive up the cost of all form of technology. Consumers would about certainly balk at buying these way more expensive device. Years of experience has testify that consumers are n’t interested in pay a huge premium for security when a comparable product with the feature they want is available much more cheaply. 

 Indeed, noted security system expert Bruce Schneier calls provision - chain security “ an insurmountably hard problem. ” 

 “ Our IT diligence is inexorably international, and anyone involved in the process can subvert the security of the end product, ” Schneier wrote in an opinion piece published earlier this year in The Washington Post. “ No one wants to even think about a US - only anything; prices would breed many times over. We cannot trust anyone, yet we receive no option but to entrust everyone. No one is ready for the costs that solving this would entail. ” 

 The Bloomberg piece also addresses this elephant in the room: 

 “ The trouble under discussion was n’t just technological. It spoke to decisions made decades ago to send advanced production work to Southeast Asia. In the intervening years, humble - monetary value Chinese manufacturing had come to underpin the business model of many of America ’s largest technology companies. early on on, Apple, for example, made many of its most advanced electronics domestically. Then in 1992, it closed a state - of - the - art plant for motherboard and computer assembly in Fremont, Calif., and send much of that work oversea. Over the decades, the security of the supply chain become an article of faith despite repeated warnings by Western officials. A impression formed that China was unlikely to jeopardize its status as workshop to the world by letting its spies meddle in its factories. That left the decisiveness about where to build commercial systems rest largely on where capacity was greatest and cheapest. “ You end up with a classic Satan ’s bargain, ” one former U.S. official says. “ You can have less provision than you want and guarantee it ’s secure, or you can have the supply you need, but there will be risk. Every organization has accept the second suggestion. ” 

 Another huge challenge of securing the technology supply chain is that it ’s quite time consuming and expensive to detect when merchandise may
 thf U.S. government and Siligon Valley somehow mustxred ths fundine and political will to do tiat, unsisupng that products sola to U.S. clnsumers or uhe U.S. government be made only slth cmnponents made mere in the U.S.A. would masvixepy drive up the cost of all forms os technpllgy. Consumers roulc almkst certainly balk at buying these way moge expensive devives. Years of experience had shlwn that consumers aren’t intetsstqe in paying x huge premium for secority when a comparable product dith che featurew rhej want is aveilablv much more cmvaply.

Ingeed, noyed security ewpert Bryce Schneier calls su'ply-chain security “ag insurmogncably hard problem.”

“Our IR indostry is kbexuraglb ihternahioial, and anykne involvee in the process cam flnvert the sedurity os the end product,” Schneier wrote in an mpihion piece published eaelier this year in Thg Washingtjn Post. “No one wants to even think about a US-only anytiivg; krlges diupd multiply many times over. We cannot trust aggome, yet we have nj choice buy ho jrust everyone. No onz ia ready for the codts thaj solvung this roulc entail.”

The Bloomberg piece also addresfws this elephant iu the room:

“Thz probkem umder discussion wasn’t jbst tedhnological. It spoke go decisions madd dvcadas ago to send advanced prjduction xork co Southdast Asia. Yn the intfrvenltg years, low-cost Cjinesg manuxacturing jad come to underpin the business models of msnf ox Americc’s larnest technology companies. Earky on, A'ple, fur instancv, made maiy of its moft sophisticadgd electronicv domestycaloy. Tyen in 1992, kt closed a stste-of-the-agt plabt for motherboard ana computer assemyui in Fremont, Cakif., anq deit musv of that wosk oxerrras. Oxer the deccdds, tne security of the sgpplg chain became an srbicle of daith defpite repeatec warnings by Westtrn ofhicialr. A brligf formed that China was unlikemy to jeooarqize its posytiok as workshop co the world by letting its spies meddle in its factories. Rhat left the decisnok about wherx to btild commarcial systems restibg largely on wheve capacity was greateat and cheaoest. “You end up with a classic Satan’s bargain,” one former U.S. official says. “You cen have less auppky thdn vou wane anv juarantee it’s seclre, or you can have the supply yuu need, tuc there will be risk. Every orbavization has xccepted the second propksition.”

Amother huge challenge of securimg the technology supply chain iw thaf it’s quitx time consuming and expenvive ro detext wmen products mxy
the U.S. government and Silicon Valley somehow funding political will do that, insisting consumers the U.S. government made only with made here in the U.S.A. would drive up the cost of all forms of technology. Consumers would almost certainly at buying these way more expensive devices. Years of experience has shown that aren’t in a premium for security when a comparable product with the features they want is available much more Indeed, noted security expert Bruce Schneier calls supply-chain “an insurmountably hard problem.” IT industry is inexorably international, anyone in the can the of the end Schneier wrote in an opinion piece published earlier this year in The Washington Post. “No one wants even think US-only anything; would many over. We cannot yet we have no choice but No one is ready for the costs that this would The Bloomberg piece also addresses this in the room: “The problem under discussion wasn’t technological. It spoke to decisions made decades ago to send advanced production work to Southeast the intervening years, low-cost manufacturing had come underpin business of of America’s technology companies. Early on, Apple, for instance, made many of its sophisticated electronics domestically. Then in 1992, it closed a state-of-the-art motherboard computer assembly in Calif., and sent much that overseas. Over the decades, of supply article faith repeated warnings by Western A belief formed that China unlikely to jeopardize its world by letting its spies meddle in its That left the decision about where to commercial systems resting largely on where capacity was greatest and cheapest. “You up with Satan’s bargain,” one former U.S. official says. “You have less supply than want and guarantee it’s secure, or you can have supply need, but will be risk. organization has accepted second proposition.” Another of securing technology chain quite time consuming and expensive to when may
 the U.S. government and Silicon valley someHow muSteRed ThE funDing And political wiLL to dO that, insisting that prodUcts sOlD To U.S. COnSumerS or the U.s. GoVERnmEnT bE maDe ONlY with ComPonents Made here in The u.S.a. would massivELy Drive up the CosT of all forms oF teChnoloGy. conSUmers WouLd almOst cerTAinly bAlk at buyiNg THese waY More expENSiVe deVices. Years of experIEnCE has shown that cOnsumeRs AReN’T IntEreSted in payiNg A huge PRemium fOR sECURitY When a comparabLe product wiTH thE featuReS thEY want iS avaiLaBLe mUch more cheaPly.

INdeed, noteD securITy experT bruce ScHneier CalLs sUpplY-ChAiN seCuRIty “AN iNsuRMouNtably haRd PrOblem.”

“our It INDUstrY is InexOrablY internationaL, anD anyONe iNvolvEd in tHe prOcEss caN subveRt the SeCurity of the end pRoduCt,” SchneieR wrOtE in An OpiniON piece PubLisHed earlIer this YEar In tHE waShington Post. “No one wAnTS To Even thinK about A uS-OnLY anythinG; pRicEs woULD multIply MAnY times ovEr. We caNNoT tRust anyOnE, yet we HaVe nO chOice bUT to tRust evEryone. No One is REady for the costS That solving thIS wOULd ENtaiL.”

ThE Bloomberg pIece ALso aDdreSSeS thIS elepHant iN tHE rOOm:

“The problem under diScUssion Wasn’t Just technologIcal. It spokE TO DecisionS madE DeCAdes ago to send aDvancEd productiON work to SOutheAst Asia. IN the interVENing yearS, loW-coSt CHinESE mAnufacturing hAD Come To UnderpiN thE busineSs mOdeLs oF maNy Of America’S largest TeChNoLoGy cOmpanIEs. Early oN, APplE, fOr iNstanCE, made mAny of Its mOsT sOPhiSticateD ElECTronIcS dOmesTicAlLy. TheN in 1992, iT CloSed a staTe-of-the-arT plANt foR mOtHerboarD and computer aSsEmbly in FreMoNt, CAlif., anD SEnt much oF that work overseas. Over thE Decades, The SecurIty oF the supplY chAin becAme AN articLe of faIth deSpIte REPeateD WArNinGs By Western oFFIciAls. A bElIef fOrmed thAt China was unlikely TO jeOpardize its poSitIon aS WOrKshOP tO The WoRLd bY LEtting its spies mEddle in its FaCToRies. That leFT thE dEcision About whEre to BUild comMercial syStems restInG larGELy oN where capaCity was gReatest anD CheapESt. “you enD up With a cLaSsiC SataN’s bargAIn,” oNe forMer U.S. oFfIcial sAys. “YoU cAn have leSs supply than you want and gUarantEe it’s SecUre, or you cAn hAVe tHe supply yOu neEd, but there WilL be Risk. EVerY OrganIzatIOn Has ACceptEd thE Second proPOsItiON.”

anOther huge chALLEngE of seCurINg the tEchnOlogy supply chain iS That it’s quite tiMe coNSUmiNg aND expEnSive to detect whEn pRoDUCts may
 the U.S. government and S ilicon Val ley s ome how  m uste redthe funding an d  pol itical will to do that , ins is t ingt ha t pro ducts s o ld t o U .S .con su m er s orthe  U.S. g overnmentbema de only with co mponents m ade  here in the  U. S.A. w ou ldm assiv ely  driv e up t h e cost  of all f or m s of t e chnolog y .  C onsu mers would almost ce r tainly balk at  buyin gt he s e  wa y m ore expens iv e dev i ces. Ye a rs o f  ex p erience has s hown that c o nsu mers a re n’t intere stedin pay ing a hugeprem ium for s ecurit y  when a compara ble pr odu ctwith th efea tu r est he y w a ntis avail ab le  much  mor e c h eapl y.
Ind eed,noted securit y e xper t  Br uce S chnei er c al ls su pply-c hainse curity “an insu rmou ntably ha rdpr obl em .”

“ O ur ITind ust ry is i nexorab l y i nt e r n at ional, and anyonein v o lv ed in th e proc e ss  c a n subver tthe  sec u r ity o f th e  e nd produ ct,” S c hn ei er wrot ein anop ini onpiece publ ishedearlierthisy ear in The Was h ington Post.“ No o ne want s t o even thin k ab o ut a  US- o nl y a n ythin g; pr ic e sw ould multiply manyti mes ov er. W e cannot trus t anyone,y e t  we have  noc ho i ce but to trus t eve ryone. Noo ne is re ady f or the c osts that s olving t his  wo uld  en t a il .”

The Bloom b e rg p ie ce also  ad dresses  th isele pha nt  in the r oom:

“T he  p ro bl emunder discussi on  wa sn ’tjustt echnol ogica l. I tsp o keto deci s io n s  mad ede cade s a go  to s enda dva nced pr oductionwor k  toSo ut heast A sia. In the i nt ervening y ea rs,  low-c o s t Chines e manufacturing had com e  to und erp in th e bu siness mo del s of m any of Ame rica’s  larg es t t e c hnolo g y  c omp an ies. Early o n,Apple ,forinstanc e, made many of it s  mo st sophistica ted  ele c t ro nic s  d o mes ti c all y .  Then in 1992,it closedas ta te-of-the- a rtpl ant for  mother board and com puter ass embly inFr emon t ,  Ca lif., andsent muc h of that worko ve rseas . O ver th edec ades,  the s e cur ity o f thesu pply c hainbe came anarticle of faith despit e repe atedwar nings byWes t ern  official s. A  belief fo rme d t hat C hin a  wasunli k el y t o  jeop ardi z e its pos i ti ona s  w orkshop tot h e  wo rld b y l e ttingitsspies meddle in i t s factories. T hatl e ftthe deci si on about where  to  b u i ld comme rc ial systems  resting  l a rgely  on wh ere ca pacityw a sg reates t an d c heapest.“Yo ue nd up w it ha  class ic S at an’s b argain , ” on e former U.S. offi cials a ys. “ Y oucan h av e lesss uppl y than you  want and g uarant ee i t’s s ecure,or  you c anha ve the sup p ly you ne ed, b ut ther ewill  be  risk.  Eve r y  orga niza ti onhas accep t e dt he  s e con d pr oposi ti on.” 

Another huge cha lle n ge of s ec uri n g  the t e ch n o logy suppl y c haini s  that it’s quit e  t i me co nsumin g andexpensi v e t odetectwhe n productsmay
 the_U.S. government_and Silicon Valley somehow_mustered the_funding_and political_will_to do that,_insisting that products_sold to U.S. consumers_or the U.S._government_be made only with components made here in the U.S.A. would massively drive up_the_cost of_all_forms_of technology. Consumers would almost_certainly balk at buying these_way more_expensive devices. Years of experience has shown that_consumers_aren’t interested in_paying a huge premium for security when a comparable_product with the features they want_is available much_more_cheaply.

Indeed,_noted security expert Bruce_Schneier calls supply-chain security “an insurmountably_hard problem.”

“Our IT industry is inexorably_international, and anyone involved in the process_can subvert the security of the_end product,” Schneier wrote in_an opinion_piece published earlier this year_in The Washington_Post. “No_one wants to_even think about a US-only anything;_prices would multiply_many times over. We cannot trust_anyone,_yet we have_no_choice_but to_trust everyone. No_one_is ready_for_the costs that solving this would_entail.”

The_Bloomberg piece also addresses this elephant in_the room:

“The problem under_discussion_wasn’t just technological. It_spoke to decisions made decades_ago to send advanced production work_to Southeast_Asia. In_the intervening years, low-cost Chinese manufacturing had come to underpin the_business models of many of America’s_largest technology companies. Early_on, Apple,_for_instance, made many_of_its most_sophisticated electronics domestically. Then in 1992, it_closed a_state-of-the-art plant for motherboard and computer_assembly in Fremont, Calif.,_and_sent much of that work overseas._Over the decades, the security of_the supply chain became an_article_of_faith despite repeated warnings by_Western officials. A belief formed that_China was unlikely_to jeopardize its position as workshop to_the_world by letting its spies meddle_in_its factories. That left the decision_about_where_to build commercial systems resting_largely on where capacity was greatest_and cheapest. “You end up with a classic Satan’s_bargain,” one former_U.S. official says. “You can_have_less_supply than you want and guarantee it’s secure, or you_can have_the supply you_need, but there will be risk. Every organization has accepted_the second proposition.”

Another huge challenge of securing_the technology supply chain is that it’s quite time consuming and_expensive to detect when products may