Forget Just Locking Your Laptop's Wireless Modem, Now Operators Can Lock The Whole Machine

from the more-bars,-but-not-the-good-kind dept

Wed, Apr 1st 2009 7:39am — Carlo Longino

Mobile operators are increasingly looking to sell non-phone devices like laptops and netbooks with embedded or add-on wireless modems as a way to boost their subscriber figures and generate extra income. Typically, consumers buy the device at a discounted upfront cost, then get tied in to a long-term contract for monthly data service (2 years at $60 per month seems to be the norm in the US). If users quit paying their bills, in theory, they've gotten a laptop on the cheap, though of course they're still subject to the terms of the contract, and damage to their credit, and so on. But Ericsson, which makes a lot of the embedded modems, has announced some new technology it's calling a "kill pill" that allows mobile operators to remotely lock a laptop by sending a signal to it over their network. The company says it's ideal if a data user quits paying their bills, but it's not hard to imagine mobile operators coming up with more nefarious uses for the device -- like shutting a machine down if a user closes their account, even if they've fulfilled their contract.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: laptops, locks, subsidies, wireless
Companies: ericsson

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

R. Miles, 1 Apr 2009 @ 7:45am

Wait. $1440 is cheap for a laptop?
Heck, I could get a decent XPS for this kind of money! Even a low end XPS + data plan is cheaper.

I seriously doubt the XPS is the model a mobile operator will offer.

A fool and his money are soon parted with this "cheap" laptop deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:37am
  
  Re: Wait. $1440 is cheap for a laptop?
  Cheap Dell laptop = $399 3G connection = $60/m. Total for two years = $1839.
  
  Remember, this plan is for the laptop and two years connection. The laptop is $100 and the connection is the same as it would be if you just got the USB device.
  
  It's like buying an iPhone and 2 year contract. The iPhone by itself is cheaper but you don't have a connection for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2009 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re: Wait. $1440 is cheap for a laptop?
    No doubt! It will probably also "feature" cheap, non-serviceable batteries that won't hold a charge after a year.
    
    Mobile Operator solution one year in:
    "Get a new Netbook! It will cost you more to replace the battery, plus this one's twice as fast!"
    Netting +2 more years on contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger, 1 Apr 2009 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wait. $1440 is cheap for a laptop?
      Now we're nitpicking. For all we know the lower powered laptop will cause the battery to not only last longer between charges but have a longer overall life.
      
      The Cell phone I have now would put any iPhone's battery to shame, but I would still be paying the same for a data plan.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2009 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait. $1440 is cheap for a laptop?
        Now we're nitpicking. For all we know the lower powered laptop will cause the battery to not only last longer between charges but have a longer overall life.
        
        Not really, Chronno.
        
        It seems practical application of such a low-powered machine would be primarily in a mobile fashion to supplement on-the-go application. To contrast, people usually bring their phone wherever they go, and it remains relatively stable temperature-wise. But due to a laptop/netbook's size, it's possible such a device will be left in a car much more often.
        
        To this end, it's known that leaving a LiION-powered devices in a hot environments (such as a car) can result in rapidly degraded energy density and decreased charging capability.
        
        So it is quite possible to see netbooks/laptop batteries fail more often than phone batteries due to application/forgetfulness of maintaining the device in a room-temperature environment.
        
        See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiIon#Storage_temperature_and_charge
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R. Miles, 1 Apr 2009 @ 3:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Wait. $1440 is cheap for a laptop?
    3G connection = $60/m
    That's mistake #1, especially when WiFi is so abundant.
    :P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold, 1 Apr 2009 @ 7:48am

Carlo, do you really think that a company would be stupid enough to remote detonate laptops after the contract is paid out? Have you thought about the liability in this sort of idea?

Seriously? Would this be the type of "expert" advice you would offer normally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Miles, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  that a company would be stupid enough to remote detonate laptops after the contract is paid out?
  Wait, you mean they don't?
  
  Because Verizon did exactly this to one of our cell phones after our contract expired and we chose to move to AT&T.
  
  Thinking we would sell our phones (notifying buyers phones were Verizon specific), imagine our surprise when one of the phones couldn't be re-activated because is was disabled by Verizon, despite being their branded phone.
  
  The only thing which remained on it was 911 dialing out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  bahahaha, once again WH you hit a home run. Keep it up man! I need the smiles!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Peet McKimmie (profile), 1 Apr 2009 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  Indeed, Weird Harold. Why, it would be like turning off the DRM servers after the customers had paid for movies or music because you know your company has the rights and will profit from the people who have to buy the same content a second time. Er...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 1 Apr 2009 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...and that would be reason for a good class action lawsuit - if the company involved isn't already bankrupt.
    
    Which touches that other issue, what if the provider goes out of business during the contract period? Who owns the machine? Can they remote detonate as they shut down?
    
    Wonderful stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Love Of Class Action Suits
      Right. Because what average consumers really want to do is launch class action suits...not have laptops and phones that still work.
      
      And class action suits are so fruitful for the consumers in the class. When the consumers "win" the case, they'll each get a $15 coupon for any goods in the carrier's retail store, and the class lawyer will get $7M.
      
      Your theory seems to be "You lose, but you really win because now you can file a class action suit." That's silly. There's no "win" in needing to sue for justice (except if your an attorney).
      
      But I appreciate your continuing to try to shift your argument after R. Miles proved your premise dead-wrong. It's more comforting than saying "Oops, my bad."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Love Of Class Action Suits
        I meant to write "you're an attorney", not "your".
        
        Oops. Typo. My bad.
        
        See that wasn't so hard, was it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch., 1 Apr 2009 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re:
  They do it with cell phones, troll. How are laptops different?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil Mike, 1 Apr 2009 @ 7:57am

More likely is this "kill pill" being used by hackers to screw over random targets for fun/profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike42 (profile), 1 Apr 2009 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  Evil Mike, you hit the nail on the head. I can already see the next virus targeting Windows boxes (stick it to the man!) that flips the switch, and "poof" no more laptop. Of course, it will change the activation code as well, so the provider cannot turn it back on.
  
  Just more proof that stupidity is more powerful than intelligence, because there are limits to intelligence...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Evil Mike, 1 Apr 2009 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams said it best:
    
    Stupidity is like nuclear power - it can be used for good or evil, and you don't want to get any on you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:10am

"Remote Detonate"
Why should people trust companies that want the ability to remote detonate a piece of equipment for any reason. What if someone hacks it, what if a "rouge" employee fires off a signal, there are so many ways this oculd be abused.

Whats next? Cars? Houses? Pace Makers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: "Remote Detonate"
  I think you mean rogue, not rouge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re: "Remote Detonate"
    Doh! I think you missed the "IRONY" tag there...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AJ, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Remote Detonate"
      lol.. I got a good visual of WH's laptop exploding in his lap while trying to post one of his rants...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Weird Harold, 1 Apr 2009 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Remote Detonate"
        Not going to happen - I am not stupid enough to fall for the "cheap shaver expensive blades" theory. I own my laptops. I own my phones, and they are not locked.
        
        Again, if the contract says "at the end of the term or termination of your contract, your laptop will be disabled", well, then you should have known. But doing it without informing the end user would open a big can of legal worms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        fprintf, 1 Apr 2009 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Remote Detonate"
        So you are a wetshaver too then? My favorites are Trumper's Sandalwood paired with Personna blades on a Merkur HD razor. It sounds like you are hard-core without using reusable blades -- you use a straight blade? That takes skill and courage!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2009 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re: "Remote Detonate"
    Maybe he did mean "rouge." They're employees who are red with anger.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
random, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:11am

New Merger
Warner Bros Inc/ Piratebay merger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spacemanbob, 1 Apr 2009 @ 8:57am

April Fools
I am thinking that this is an AF's Joke.. I will find it hard to believe many stories today due to the date. So many stories about idiotic ideas of screwing users out of things. Maybe it is AF's all year now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not A Good Idea, 1 Apr 2009 @ 9:26am

Trivial to bypass this ...
Its really trivial to bypass this (based on the info that is so far available on this). Just remove the 3G modem that came originally with the laptop, you will have a perfectly working laptop (sans the 3G connectivity, ofcourse you are free to add another 3G modem or equivalent of that). Or just "kill" the radio. All radios on the laptop always come with a kill switch.

What about the potential for abuse ? What if someone figures out to send the "right" SMS message to targeted laptops (for fun or profit ?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 1 Apr 2009 @ 11:22am

it's not hard to imagine mobile operators coming up with more nefarious uses for the device -- like shutting a machine down if a user closes their account, even if they've fulfilled their contract.

like the community won't find a way to disable the remote lock ability....

The only ones who will get hosed are the shareholders of said companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2009 @ 11:25am

This will work real well on Linux
EOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:24pm

Positive Applications of Kill Switch
Let's also consider the practical uses of the Ericsson kill feature. I had a Netbook stolen earlier this year, and would have loved to be able to remotely kill the device. I know it's not foolproof (hard drive could still be extracted), but security is additive, and this would add. If the HD were encrypted to a fingerprint reader, a dead laptop would mean the HD was also un-readable. IT departments would appreciate this feature.

I can understand the carrier's desire to have the ability to stop the laptop of someone who has stopped paying the bill. It's a contract. If the consumer doesn't honor their end, the carrier should have some remedy. I don't think they would abuse it past the 2-yr point, as a backlash would
definitely ensue (forget class action suits, a backlash is more useful). However, I see the risk of erroneous triggering, or malicious triggering of the kill switch by the carrier or by hackers.

For those of you who have done the math on $60 x 24 months = $1440, congrats on your math skill. But the average customer is able to match your 5th grade calculation, and decide if the deal is worth it for them. If not, buy an unsubsidized laptop, no whining required. But for some people who want both a new laptop, AND a cellular modem, why not take the $300 discount for a 2-year committment. Freedom of choice isn't a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laptop Eater, 8 Apr 2009 @ 12:21pm

Hacker's Fiesta
Just the whole idea of this sounds like it's prone to hacker abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]