Just who is in control?

When Samsung Electronics remotely disabled the last of its flawed Galaxy Note 7 smartphones last month, it further blurred the lines between who ultimately controls your phone, or computer, car or appliance: you, or the companies that make it work?

Industry executives and analysts say companies are exerting greater remote control over their devices - changing how and whether they work, removing or adding software and content, or collecting personal data from them - not always with permission or with the user’s best interests at heart.

“(The Samsung case) is exactly an example of how devices are no longer objects we own, but rather services we’ve subscribed to and which can be revoked at a moment’s notice,” said computer security expert Stefano Zanero.

Mahbubul Alam, chief technology officer at Movimento, a car tech firm now owned by Delphi Automotive, says manufacturers have moved on from just selling a device and hoping there’s no recall to a world where they are in touch with users through internet-connected devices that they can ‘change, modify, adjust’ as they see fit. “With power comes responsibility,” he added.

“It’s a new power that the device manufacturers and telecom companies have. How they exercise their responsibility is very important.” Samsung said it retrieved 96 per cent of the more than three million Note 7s it had sold and activated, including those returned in Bahrain.

That left more than 120,000 unreturned phones that were put out of action by overthe-air software updates or by telecom operators barring them from their networks. “We assume the majority of unreturned devices are not actually used,” said a spokesperson for the South Korean firm.

In another example, HP last year used a software update to prevent unauthorised cartridges being used with some of its printers. After some users complained, HP offered an optional update. HP did not respond to requests for comment.

In other cases, manufacturers use socalled firmware updates to stop people using their devices in ways they don’t want. Apple, for example, routinely upgrades the firmware on iPhones to outwit users’ attempts to open up the software to unapproved apps and functions - dubbed jail-breaking - said Bunnie Huang, a hardware entrepreneur.

Whatever the motivation, companies see advantages in being able to retain some degree of remote control and analysts believe more regulation from government is likely. “What’s needed here is oversight,” said Bryce Boland, Asia-Pacific chief technology officer at FireEye, an internet security company.

“Some cases may be legitimate, such as devices that need to be modified to prevent fires or human deaths; others might be more difficult to assess.”