Nvidia's China-bound H20 AI chips face Beijing scrutiny over ‘tracking' and security concerns
According to the Cyberspace Administration of China, Nvidia met with Beijing officials on Thursday regarding potential national security concerns posed by its H20 chips, which recently saw restrictions on their export lifted following an effective ban in April.
Nvidia was requested "to clarify and submit relevant supporting documentation regarding security risks, including potential vulnerabilities and backdoors, associated with its H20 computing chips sold to China," according to a CNBC translation of a statement from CAC.
In a post, the regulator said that Nvidia's computing chips were reported to have serious security vulnerabilities, also noting calls from U.S. lawmakers for mandatory tracking features to be placed on advanced chips exported from the country.
In its statement, CAC added that American AI experts had already revealed that Nvidia's computing chips pose mature "tracking and positioning" and "remote shutdown" technologies.
The statement appears to be referencing a report from Reuters in May that said Bill Foster, a Democrat lawmaker from Illinois, was planning to introduce legislation that would require advanced AI chipmakers like Nvidia to include a built-in location reporting system.
Forester, who once worked as a particle physicist, and independent technical experts reportedly agreed that the technology to track chips was readily available, with much of it already built into Nvidia's chips.
Forester's bill would also seek to give U.S. authorities the power to remotely shut down chips being used without proper licenses, in a measure to fight chip smuggling and export loopholes.
Nvidia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.
In recent weeks, many American lawmakers have also taken issue with the reported rollback of restrictions on Nvidia's H20 chips, warning they will advance Beijing's AI capability.
This week, Nvidia reportedly placed orders for 300,000 H20 chipsets with contract manufacturer TSMC as it seeks to meet Chinese demand.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Japan tech giant SoftBank Group sees better fortunes on surging AI stocks
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese technology conglomerate SoftBank Group Corp. posted a 421.8 billion yen ($2.9 billion) profit in the April-June quarter, rebounding from a loss a year earlier as its investments benefited from the craze for artificial intelligence. Quarterly sales at Tokyo-based SoftBank Group, which invests heavily in AI companies like Nvidia and Open AI, rose 7% to 1.8 trillion yen ($12 billion), the company said Thursday. SoftBank's loss in April-June 2024 was 174 billion yen. The company's fortunes tend to fluctuate because it invests in a range of ventures through its Vision Funds, a move that carries risks. The group's founder Masayoshi Son has emphasized that he sees a vibrant future in AI. SoftBank has also invested in Arm Holdings and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Both companies, which produce computer chips, have benefitted from the growth of AI. 'The era is definitely AI, and we are focused on AI,' SoftBank senior executive Yoshimitsu Goto he told reporters. 'An investment company goes through its ups and downs, but we are recently seeing steady growth.' Some of SoftBank's other investments also have paid off big. An example is Coupang, an e-commerce company known as the 'Amazon of South Korea,' because it started out in Seoul. Coupang now operates in the U.S. and other Asian nations. Goto said preparations for an IPO for PayPay, a kind of cashless payment system, were going well. The company has already held IPOs for Chime, a U.S. 'neobank' that provides banking services for low-credit consumers, and for Etoro, a personal investment platform. ___ Yuri Kageyama on Threads: Yuri Kageyama, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
No one was sad to see this Confederate statue go. Now Trump is bringing it back.
Trump wants us to move backward, to a time when our nation's ugly, racist past was swept under the rug. Why else would he be propping up inept Confederate generals while targeting Black history? President Donald Trump is still defending the Confederacy in 2025. The National Park Service announced on Aug. 4 that it intends to restore and reinstall a monument honoring Albert Pike just miles from the U.S. Capitol grounds. The announcement fails to mention that Pike was a Confederate general who fought to protect slavery. It also continues to make clear what parts of American history that the Republican Party and Trump want so desperately to commemorate – and erase. It's part of a recent push by the Trump administration to restore 'truth in American history' by undoing all the progress made in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. The statue announcement comes after Trump began restoring the names of Army bases that were once named for Confederate soldiers. Back in March, he signed an executive order that called for a federal review of the monuments that were removed in 2020. I grew up in the South, surrounded by remnants of the Confederacy. I have learned about the Civil War my entire life from the perspective of Southerners. Trust me when I say these statues have no place in the United States. Who was Albert Pike, the man Trump wants to honor? Pike, a Freemason and member of the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party, was a Confederate general who served for less than two years before resigning. His troops were accused of scalping Union soldiers. There are claims that he was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War, but historians say this can't be proven. After his death in 1891, the Freemasons requested that a statue be built in his honor. The statue of Pike was approved to be built by Congress in 1898 and erected in 1901, decades after the Civil War ended. Opinion: What if I told you there's a Democrat in NC who can still get the Republican vote? The National Park Service website admits that the memorial has been controversial since it was first planned. In 1992, the DC Council requested that the statue be removed. The council reaffirmed this request in 2017. The statue was toppled on Juneteenth in 2020 with no intervention from police. 'The D.C. police are not doing their job as they watch a statue be ripped down & burn,' Trump, who was still in his first term as president, tweeted at the time. 'These people should be immediately arrested. A disgrace to our Country!' So why is Trump hellbent on bringing back a monument to a man who wasn't even good at being a Confederate general? It's simple: He's doing so because he can. It's a move to show U.S. constituents that Make America Great Again doesn't just refer to a time when Republicans were in power; it refers to a time when honoring racists was commonplace. Meanwhile, Trump wants Black history erased Trump has been reviving Confederate namesakes and restoring monuments while simultaneously erasing Black history from the record. It is part of his crusade to tell the "true" history of America – one that continues to center Whiteness instead of acknowledging the diversity of lived experiences in our country. In January, the Air Force removed training videos that featured the Tuskegee Airmen before bipartisan outcry got the videos reinstated. In April, the National Park Service altered a webpage for the Underground Railroad so that it no longer featured an image and quote of Harriet Tubman, once again restoring the references after backlash. Trump's executive order about "restoring truth and sanity to American history" includes a reference to the National Museum of African American History and Culture as an example of the Smithsonian Institution being "under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology." Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. It's a continuation of his actions during the first administration, when he went after the 1619 Project and proposed the "1776 commission" in retaliation. Trump wants the United States to move backward, back to a time when our nation's ugly, racist past was swept under the rug. Why else would he be propping up Confederate generals while targeting Black history? Opinion: Republicans are afraid of Mamdani in New York. That's a good thing. I want the South where I grew up to move forward I am a native North Carolinian. One side of my family has been in the South for generations; we have ties to the Confederacy. I am also absolutely against the reestablishment of this monument, or anything else that praises people who were clearly on the wrong side of history. There is no Lost Cause; what the South did was not noble or inspiring. Confederates seceded, in an act of treason, from the Union because they wanted to continue enslaving people. They fought a war against this country to maintain that right, and they lost. There is no honor in memorializing people who rebelled against our nation. The South is a beautiful, diverse place with a rich history of resistance to systemic racism. Surely, there are Southerners we could honor instead of simply putting up the same statue of a man who fought for slavery. There is no reason to reinstall this monument except to remind people that the right still celebrates racists. Trump is celebrating the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Time Magazine
6 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Stanford Daily Sues Trump Administration
Stanford University's student newspaper is suing the Trump Administration over what it says is the government's attempts to target international students for immigration actions over the expression of pro-Palestinian views. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of the Stanford Daily, as well as two unnamed former students. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are named as defendants. A spokesperson for Stanford University told Reuters that the student newspaper is an independent organization and that the university is not involved in the lawsuit. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at FIRE, said in a statement. 'Free speech isn't a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.' The lawsuit has requested a preliminary injunction to block the government from attempting to deport students over pro-Palestinian speech while the case is ongoing. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the complaint says. The Stanford Daily was previously on the losing end of a Supreme Court case in 1978 over the search of its offices and seizure of evidence related to a crime—a protest demonstration where police officers were injured—that it had reported on but was not criminally involved in. That case ultimately led to Congress' passage in 1980 of the Privacy Protection Act, which protects journalists in such cases. Here's what to know about the new case and why the newspaper is once again hoping to defend not just its own student writers but a wider class of people whose rights it believes are being infringed. Targeting of foreign students The Trump Administration has used two provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to target foreign-born students and censor pro-Palestinian speech, according to the lawsuit. The first provision, known as the Deportation Provision, gives the Secretary of State the authority to deport a noncitizen if he ''personally determines' their lawful 'beliefs, statements, or associations' 'compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest,'' the lawsuit states. Rubio cited the provision to justify the attempted deportation of Palestinian Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who had acted as a liaison between student protestors and university administrators during pro-Palestinian student demonstrations in 2024, and was arrested by immigration officers on March 8. In an April memo to an immigration judge overseeing Khalil's case, Rubio said that although Khalil's 'past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations … are otherwise lawful,' the Deportation Provision allows Rubio to 'personally determine' whether Khalil should be allowed to remain in the U.S. (Khalil was released from custody in June, and in July his attorneys filed for a preliminary injunction challenging the government's attempts to deport him on a separate immigration charge that alleges he misrepresented himself on his green card application). The second provision, known as the Revocation Provision, allows the Secretary of State to revoke a visa or documentation at his discretion. The Trump Administration has used this provision to revoke the visa of and detain Tufts University Ph.D. student Rumeysa Öztürk, who had co-authored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the Tufts Daily before her detention and has since been released. 'We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses,' Rubio told reporters in May. 'If we've given you a visa and then you decide to do that, we're going to take it away.' The complaint argues that both provisions are unconstitutional when applied to protected speech: 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message. And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.' The plaintiffs argue that the government's deportation threats and actions have amounted to violations of First Amendment rights. Since March, noncitizen writers of the Stanford Daily have declined to cover pro-Palestinian protests and asked to remove previous articles on the topic, fearing that such reporting could jeopardize their legal immigration status, according to the lawsuit. 'There's real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,' Greta Reich, the student newspaper's editor-in-chief, said in a statement. 'I've had reporters turn down assignments, request the removal of some of their articles, and even quit the paper because they fear deportation for being associated with speaking on political topics, even in a journalistic capacity. The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.' The Trump Administration has also cracked down on international students more broadly. In April, the government quietly revoked the visas of thousands of students who had allegedly committed minor legal infractions before abruptly reversing the policy. The Administration has also used international students as a bargaining chip to compel university administrations to comply with certain demands, such as by attempting to revoke Harvard University's authority to enroll international students. And the government has heightened its scrutiny of student visa applicants, including vetting applicants' social media profiles for 'a history of political activism.' The Trump Administration's response 'DHS doesn't arrest people based on protected speech, so the plaintiffs' premise is incorrect,' DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to media outlets. 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable.' A bench trial challenging the Trump Administration's alleged 'ideological deportation' policy concluded last month and a final ruling is expected this or next month. That lawsuit was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. During the course of the trial, a government memo unearthed in court revealed that officials had warned Rubio about potential legal scrutiny of deportation attempts because their basis could be considered constitutionally protected speech. 'Anyone who has any position that is against what the American government says they should think, they're immediately 'anti-American,'' David Rozas, an immigration attorney who represented Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian student who was detained for weeks and ultimately chose to self-deport, told TIME in May. 'America was built on discourse,' he added. Trump's immigration agenda, he said, is 'going to stifle American growth and the American dream.' '225 years after the Alien Friends Act expired, the danger of nighttime raids on noncitizens for perceived thoughtcrime is reality once more. Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration's war against noncitizens' freedom of speech is intended to send an unmistakable message: Watch what you say, or you could be next,' the complaint says. 'Message received.'
