| |||||||||||||
potential for abusepotential for abusePosted Feb 9, 2007 2:09 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493)In reply to: potential for abuse by grouch Parent article: Bitfrost: the OLPC security model
> 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.
Absolutely.
(Log in to post comments)
potential for abuse Posted Feb 9, 2007 4:55 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] which is why bifrost shuts down the laptop after some period of not being able to phone home.
potential for abuse Posted Feb 9, 2007 10:22 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] A device that shuts itself if it cannot phone home may not be a good idea: China Loses Over 9,000 Domain Names in Earthquake.
potential for abuse Posted Feb 9, 2007 11:06 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] Yes, but the OLPC is designed to create its own network.
In the case that the central authority itself goes away for 21 days, the fact that OLPC systems also shut down probably will not help, but will not be a big problem compared to some.
potential for abuse Posted Feb 9, 2007 12:00 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] A major communication cable going down can actually cause this.
Going to a different part of the country for a month with your laptop can also brickify it.
And a malfunctioning network adapter will also brickify your device.
potential for abuse Posted Feb 15, 2007 13:07 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] Aren't these machines supposed to use some form of ad-hoc wireless mesh networking? Communication cables going down shouldn't be a huge problem, one would hope.
|
|||||||||||||