potential for abuse
Posted Feb 8, 2007 7:17 UTC (Thu) by grouch
Parent article: Bitfrost: the OLPC security model
The anti-theft mechanisms (both the activation one and the "optional" one) have tremendous potential for abuse by repressors. Instead of phoning home, can the OLPC be required to take the child's photo at intervals to confirm it has not been stolen?
It seems to me that it would be better to rely on a mechanism where the machine confirms its owner than to rely on reporting to a remote entity. The owner may be presumed to have his or her best interests at heart. If the remote entity has the power, even by lack of confirmation, to disable the OLPC, that remote entity is the owner of the machine. Is the goal to provide ownership of one laptop per child, or conditional loan?
to post comments)