I installed NetGuard about a month ago and blocked all internet to apps, unless they’re on a whitelist. No notifications from this particular system app (that can’t be disabled) until recently when it started making internet connection requests to google servers. Does anyone know when this became a thing?
Edit 2: I bought my Pixel 6 phone outright, directly from Google’s Australian store. I have no creditors.
Were the courts not enough control for creditors? Since when are they allowed to lock you out of your purchased property without a court order?
I don’t even live in the US, so what the actual fuck?
Edit 1: You can check it’s installed (stock Pixel 6 android 14) Settings > Apps > All Apps > three dot menu, Show system > search “DeviceLockController”.
I highly recommend getting NetGuard, you can enable pro features via their website if you have the APK for as low as 0.10€, but donate more, because it’s amazing. You can also purchase via Google Play store.
This type of tech is already being put into vehicles as well. I used to get laughed at 20 years ago when I predicted this. Nobody is laughing anymore. If anything, they just accept it.
Sigh. Way too much freeze in fight, flight or freeze…
I know this is a privacy community, but I’m not sure I’m onboard with the outrage on this particular one. If you rent/lease or go on a payment plan for the device you’re using, then it isn’t yours, it belongs to the entity you borrowed it from.
If I don’t make car payments, the bank can repossess my ride. If I dont pay my mortgage or rent, I can be evicted by my landlord or bank.
If I don’t make my phone payment, the company should have recourse to prevent me from using their device.
This could open up the ability for bad actors to disable my device, and I agree that’s a horrible prospect. But the idea of a legitimate creditor using this feature to reclaim their property is not something I find shocking.
All your points are sound. The issue that I have with this is that remote disable functionality is not necessary to achieve any of these aims. Before they were connected to the internet, people were still able to rent/lease autos and the world managed to survive just fine. There were other ways for lenders to get remunerated for breaking lease terms - they could issue an additional charge, get a court order for repossession, etc. Remote disable was never needed or warranted.
So let’s start by considering the due process here. Before, there was some sort of process involved in the repossession act. With remote disable however, the lender can act as judge, jury and executioner so to speak - that party can unilaterally disable the device with no oversight. And if the lender is in the wrong, there is likely no recourse. Another potential issue here is that the lender can change the terms at any time - it can arbitrarily decide that it doesn’t like what you’re doing with the device, decide you’re in breach, and hit that remote kill switch. A lot of these things could technically happen before too, but the barriers have been dramatically lowered now.
On top of this, there are great privacy concerns as well. What kinds of additional information does the lender have? What right do they have to things like our location, our habits, when we use it, and all of the other personal details that they can infer from programs like this?
There are probably lots of other issues here, but another part of the problem is that we can’t even start to imagine what kinds of nefarious behaviors they can execute with this new information and power. We are well into the age where our devices are becoming our enemies instead of our advocates. I shudder to think what the world would look like 20 years from now if this kind of behavior isn’t stopped.
Perfectly stated! The moralizing story kind of serves as cover, as a complete blank check to excuse practically any behavior of the lender, without any limiting principle.
Right - they say that they’re just going to use it to defend their “property rights”. In practice, they’re going to use it for a whole lot more than just that…
Requests the app made today.
This is my phone I own outright, by the way. I don’t have any creditors.
Update for those curious:
I find it interesting that yours is
com.google.android.devicelockcontroller.I checked mine on GrapheneOS and it looks like it’s the AOSP version of the package:
com.android.devicelockcontroller
anyone remember the time when google removed(!) their internal “don’t be evil” rule? guess this is part of the outcome of that “be evil” that came along with removal of the opposite. Abuse of this mechanism is IMHO veery predictable ;-)
There are plenty of google-free cellphones, one could easily stick to better products of better companies. help yourself, google’s not gonna do that for you within the next 5billion* years as they IMHO already stated they “want” to be evil now, always remember that ;-)
*) thats round about when our sun expands too much for earth, so i currently dislike doing any predictions beyond that point ;-) i do not predict google would last that long, only that they’ll keep beeing evil until their end.
Devs still need to eat so we will need a better alternative to adsense. As long as we depend on these corporate services their stranglehold will only continue strengthen like this.
In 2020 Google claimed it was supposed to be limited to a single region in partnership with a single carrier. And was never meant to be put up on Play Store.
A spokesperson from Google reached out to clarify some details about the Device Lock Controller app. To start with, Google says they launched this app in collaboration with a Kenyan carrier called Safaricom.
Google has confirmed that the Device Lock Controller app should not be listed on the Google Play Store for users in the U.S., and they will work to take down the listing.
Source: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-device-lock-controller-banks-payments/
Of course, it was a lie since it’s still on Play Store an of today and in use.
It must be globally, I’m in Australia. What utter bullshit, since I would have never known if it weren’t for my NetGuard firewall app.
Being Australian this is likely one to report to the ACCC, as Aussies at least have basic consumer protection, though that get murky with overseas tech entities.
Unfortunately the ACCC gives fewer fucks than you may expect. An airline once cancelled a flight on me and kept the cancellation fee, despite producing no evidence that any government had forced them to cancel the flight (this was during COVID).
ACCC did not care one bit
So while we do have some consumer protection (better than most) I would be surprised if they cared.
It’s 5 minutes out of your life to try, as an aussie, please do, for charity if nothing else, who knows, you might benefit…
I am a serial complaint lodger, just that I’m much busier than I used to be. I may do it once I figure out what’s going on with it on my phone.
Fair cop.
Thanks for you understanding friendo 🇦🇺
If it tickles your fancy, I once lodged a complaint with the national measurement institute to get a bar to stop selling American pints.
And they now sell it by the mL, beautiful
I’m using CalyxOS and it’s pre-installed as a system app, so this seems like something that’s being built in at the AOSP level of development.
Can’t find it in OxygenOS
Did you check your system apps? It’s an AOSP app, so I would be surprised if this were the case. It could be under either
com.googleorcom.android.Yeah I did it’s not there
I still would be very surprised if this were the case. Unfortunately it seems that OxygenOS does not have public repositories to actually check the source code (!), but there are apps that will actually show you all of your installed packages and I bet one of those would show that it’s installed.
Of course, it was a lie since it’s still on Play Store an of today and in use.
FWIW, I just searched it up and it’s listed as unavailable in my region (USA) 🤷♂️ so at the very least, they scoped it down a little bit
Checked my pixel 6 and it’s on mine. Might not be in the store for everyone, but it’s installed on my owned device.
