Dahua Falsely Tells FCC Its Recorders Are Not Covered By NDAA

Dahua told the FCC last month that its recorders are not covered by the NDAA ban because they are not "video surveillance equipment," arguing this 4 years after the ban was passed. But Dahua sales support and ADI told us Dahua recorders are NDAA-banned.

Inside this note, we explain what Dahua told the FCC, how Dahua's marketing contradicts this, and Dahua's response doubling down that recorders are not video surveillance equipment.

On June 28th, 2022, Dahua filed a letter with the FCC arguing that many of its products are not NDAA-banned because they are not "video surveillance equipment." Dahua's attorney Andrew Lipman of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius filed the letter with the FCC on its behalf, attaching a list of dozens of products it now considers NDAA compliant.

Dahua wrote, "This list includes accessories, displays, video recorders, and data storage devices."

Since only “video surveillance and telecommunications equipment” or services produced by Dahua Technology are covered under Section 889, only those types of equipment or services can be placed on the Covered List.

(....)

Dahua USA equipment [on the list] are neither “video surveillance” nor “telecommunications” equipment, and therefore are outside the scope of ”covered equipment” under Section 889 of the NDAA. This list includes accessories, displays, video recorders, and data storage devices. [emphasis added]

To our knowledge, neither Dahua nor any major manufacturer or distributor in the industry has ever made this argument before. In the nearly 4 years since Congress passed the NDAA, video recorders have consistently been considered part of the ban.

Attachment A Lists Alleged Not Covered Product

In Dahua's 42-page filing, they include an "Attachment A", starting on Page 7 that lists hundreds of Dahua products that Dahua alleges are not covered by the NDAA ban. For example, it includes numerous NVRs and DVRs partially shown below:

Dahua Says Recorders Not "Video Surveillance", Yet Markets as "Video Surveillance"

Contrary to its FCC statements, Dahua USA markets its video recorders for video surveillance, as is normal in the video surveillance industry.

For example, the 16-channel 4K Network Video Recorder only mentions a single application: video surveillance:

Some recorders even have "Video Surveillance" in the product name, such as the 256CH Video Surveillance Server, which Dahua included in the NDAA compliant list submitted to the FCC:

IPVM checked product pages for all 36 models of Dahua USA recorders. Of those, 33 say the product is for "video surveillance", while only 2 do not mention "video surveillance." (One product has no description.) Product descriptions only tout video surveillance applications, with no mention of applications unrelated to surveillance.

Dahua and ADI Customer Support Say Recorders Are Covered by NDAA

IPVM called Dahua USA sales support to ask whether its recorders are covered by the NDAA ban. Cameron at Dahua said, "No, anything involving Dahua is not NDAA compliant."

We also called ADI, Dahua USA's largest distributor, to ask the same question. ADI's representative said that recorders are covered by the NDAA, saying "You can't use Dahua" for NDAA-compliant projects, and that the ban applies to Dahua "IP products", including recorders, and not just cameras.

Dahua Response: "Common Sense" That Recorders Not Video Surveillance

Dahua provided a statement to IPVM in response to this article, doubling down on and elaborating its FCC argument:

As a point of fact, a recorder is not a piece of surveillance equipment. This does not strike us as a particularly controversial position, but rather is common sense.

IPVM included the Dahua marketing materials above in our comment request, including the product titled "Video Surveillance Server." Dahua said this reinforces their position:

Indeed, as the marketing materials IPVM itself sent to us make clear, the recorders and servers are equipment that can be used “for video surveillance applications;” they are not themselves video surveillance applications.

To the contrary, Dahua's marketing was clear that the only application they stated these recorders to be used for was video surveillance, clearly covered by the NDAA ban.

Dahua told IPVM that cameras were banned because they are "designed and marketed to do the work of video surveillance" but recorders are not, they are only "designed for use with those cameras."

Dahua and its attorney refused to respond when we pointed out that Dahua listed its 256CH Video Surveillance Server as not covered by the NDAA ban even when Dahua named the product a "video surveillance server".

Regarding Dahua's representative who stated recorders are not NDAA compliant, Dahua explained they aimed to "err on the side of caution":

We would appreciate it if you would faithfully report that our salespeople err on the side of caution when it comes to compliance. We prefer to lose permitted sales to avoid even a small risk of a covered piece of equipment being inadvertently sold to a customer subject to the NDAA."

Dahua's full original statement is below:

Dahua USA was asked by the FCC to provide a specific list of equipment that falls outside the scope of ‘covered equipment’ under Section 889 of the NDAA. Our recent submission was in response to that request. As indicated in our filing, some but not all Dahua USA equipment meets the definition of being either “video surveillance” or “telecommunications” equipment. As a point of fact, a recorder is not a piece of surveillance equipment. This does not strike us as a particularly controversial position, but rather is common sense. Indeed, as the marketing materials IPVM itself sent to us make clear, the recorders and servers are equipment that can be used “for video surveillance applications;” they are not themselves video surveillance applications. Suggesting otherwise is like saying that earbuds are telecommunications equipment because they are marketed as being perfect for smartphones.

Having said that, our filing also makes abundantly clear that Dahua USA only markets its products (including those not covered by Section 889) to its six verticals: retail, commercial, agriculture, healthcare, gaming and residential. We believe end users of our products are generally commercial and individual consumers in those categories. We do not and have not specifically marketed any of our products to government facilities, critical infrastructure sectors or customers that provide national security. This approach applies both to products that fall within the definitions of Section 889 of the NDAA and those that fall outside that definition. Indeed, as we state in our submission, Dahua USA is “open to considering additional reasonable measures to prevent inadvertent sales of its Covered List products to users in these specific sectors, such as additional product labeling and/or including terms prohibiting such sales in its contracts with Dahua Distributors and Dealers.

Dahua's reply to our follow up questions:

Video surveillance cameras are designed and marketed to do the work of video surveillance. They unambiguously meet the statutory definition of being “video surveillance equipment” under the NDAA. Recorders, accessories, displays and other such products are designed for use with those cameras, but are not themselves surveillance tools.

Regarding your conversation with our sales representative, we would appreciate it if you would faithfully report that our salespeople err on the side of caution when it comes to compliance. We prefer to lose permitted sales to avoid even a small risk of a covered piece of equipment being inadvertently sold to a customer subject to the NDAA.

False Claims With Uyghur Warnings

Similarly, Dahua made false allegations when it was caught with its own internal technical documentation for "Uyghur Warnings" to PRC police.

First, it admitted that "the relevant documents reported by certain media are historical internal software design documents," however, it now alleges that they "never developed a product or solution designed to identify or otherwise target any specific ethnic group" despite the clear evidence from their own website.

Risk To Public And National Security

Dahua's false position that its recorders are not covered by the NDAA puts the public and US national security at risk, as it can confuse and encourage its partners and US buyers to purchase and deploy those products in violation of the NDAA.