Slashdot Mirror
OLPC Has Kill-Switch Theft Deterrent
Sid writes "Ars Technica reports that the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) XO has an anti-theft daemon in the OS that can be used to remotely disable machines, much like WGA. The Project added the kill switch at the behest of a few countries concerned about laptop theft. From the report, 'OLPC has responded to such concerns by developing an anti-theft daemon that the project claims cannot be disabled, even by a user with root access. Participating countries can then provide identifying information such as a serial number to a given country's OLPC program oversight entity, which can then disable the devices in certain scenarios.'"
Sadly, I would imagine it will be a very short period of time before the feature is defeated. It's still a deterent I suppose, just not as much of one ...
The potential for abuse here is pretty high. If the controlling government (Read: whoever controls the Internet connection and licensing servers, so maybe a corporation) wants to keep the people in line, they can just threaten to turn everyone's laptop off. If an invading nation wants an information blackout, shut everyone's laptop out.
In most cases the value to the thief is not in the object itself but in its resale value. If they know that the laptops will be bricked before they can shift them, it might deter some people from swiping them.
..... Just look at what's happening to the guys who do DRM for the MAFIAA. Face it, ANYTHING can be cracked if you try hard enough.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
If the user has root access, then it is his box. Any component can be removed, including the dhcpcd client which attempts to enforce this rule.
It is only "possible" if you agree to run their software as installed.
Their reliance on GPL components should make it clear which components need to be replaced to avoid asking permission to continue using the software.
So, does this mean that the OLPC project is going to need a back-end infrastructure to support this Daemon? With the amounts of laptops considered in this project, that means that a pretty large back-end infrastructure is going to be needed to support this process.
In addition, there's going to need to be a tremendous amount of "process defintion" for something of this scale. What constitutes a "stolen" laptop in this case? How is it reported? To Whom? Who is ultimately responsible?
Sounds like a massive undertaking and far from clearly defined, other than a "Daemon is available."
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
Sounds to me like a convenient way to gag someone that a government doesn't want to be heard. "Are they making derrogatory comments about the leadership? Well then, just turn their computer off."
I suppose, it probably will only be a matter of time before some individual will figure out (in their mind) that this is a good way to extort money from someone else. "Send me $nn or I will disable your computer(s)." Then again, if they're using a $100 laptop given to them, what money would there be to extort?
As I mentioned before, the whole concept of an unconnected laptop or one with minimal internet access (i.e wireless mesh) goes for a toss with this feature. The worst of the activation features which windows has, negating the real advantage of having a laptop you could take literally anywhere. Locking out someone just because they couldn't hook their PC into the network for twenty days is no way to make OLPC work. The real way to keep them off the black market is to reward those who keep their machines intact - just like the way to get kids to come to school has been a free lunch programme (and I sit in an Indian state with 99% literacy rates).
Or if you're really interested in reducing the utility of the machines, send an access code to the school master every month - for the laptops to get on the internet. You need to go pick up the coupon to get back on the internet and just kick the ones which are reported missing in audits - rather than go in for an active licensing scheme as mentioned in the document.
But in general, technical solutions for social (as well as economic) problems hardly work out, by themselves.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
It will be used to shut off the machines of disadents. Governments don't seem to care that much about machines being stolen, but they do care about giving power to political opponents. If I buy a machine, I should have complete control of it. No one should be able to remotely turn off the machine without my explicit authorization. I can't think of any way to make a feature like this safe from abuse.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
I have to say, I don't like the decidedly big-brother tilt the OLPC project has been taking lately. With all the news that has come out lately on OLPC, the whole "users will be able to read/understand/modify its source code" stance seems to have gone away.
If I can read and compile the O/S, who's to say I can't just remove the kill daemon from my build and then install it? In order to be robust, they'll have to lock down the installed software and make it impossible for the user to change. No community development; no share-and-share-alike; no software libre, counter to the whole "open source" philosophy they tout as the project's base.
This isn't a hacker's dream toy; its a business proposition to sell expensive supporting infrastructure and services along with a loss-leading locked-down client device disguised as charity in the name of educating the poor.
The command has to be RSA-signed, and the OLPC project folks aren't giving out the private key used to provide the signature.
So no, we aren't going to see forged kill requests.
... the more likely it gets to fail.
What"s with this "slave the user's machine to the mothership" mentality? "The system allows countries to optionally establish a "license" period for the laptops, such as 21 days. Laptops which are not renewed within the timeframe will lock." Get too far from the local wireless node and your machine dies? And they want to deploy this in third world countries?
That makes life easier for terrorists. The Taliban, which is coming back in Afghanistan, is going to exploit this. Destroy the local school (standard Taliban operating procedure) and its wireless node, and all the kids' computers die. Today at least the parents and kids can hide some books. With OLPC, it's easier for Islamic fundamentalists to destroy knowledge.
I'm frankly quite amazed that there doesn't seem to be a single comment acknowledging that this is in fact a very important, even essential, feature.
Those laptops are meant for people who could otherwise never possibly afford to buy a computer. This means that they have a very high value in those places, often places where there is a high crime rate and a tendency toward extreme violence even for simple thefts.
I would not want my kid to walk home from school carrying something that might be worth several months salary (and everybody knowing about it). The only way to protect the children from getting robbed and possibly killed for their laptops is for those laptops to have zero resell value for thieves.