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.

  • Night Monkey@sh.itjust.works
    5·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • nymwit@lemm.ee
      2·
      9 months ago

      your self driving car will just drive itself back to the lot when your payment is late

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        1·
        9 months ago

        Nah, he’s difficult to work with for sure, and rather extremist, but unfortunately he is a lot of right on the money. I wouldn’t call that a pos

        • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          9 months ago

          most of this “he’s a pos” comes from the misconceptions about him. he has a certain fixation to the vocabulary, and he often corrects others for it. then those people take the “attempt to correct” as “support” for the debate itself.

          • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
            01·
            9 months ago

            I think this is an extremely generous take. For anyone not in the loop, he gets called POS for famously weighing in on discussions of pedophelia by saying children 13+ aren’t children so it’s not pedophelia.

            I think this goes beyond being bad at knowing when to correct semantics

            • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
              1·
              9 months ago

              Not that it excuses his behavior but isn’t he on the autism spectrum? People on the spectrum sometimes have no filter and are very literal. Like saying a 13 year old is more adolescent than child.

              • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
                0·
                9 months ago

                I do too, but I think being that tone deaf after being called out says a lot, and I think it’s pretty good reason to not make blanket endorsements for his statements/beliefs

                • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  he wasn’t tone dead in that case you mentioned. he has since changed his thoughts about it.

                  Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

                  Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  Sure. The only “blanket” statements I’m willing to give are limited to his work on Free Software. His statements on pretty much everything else should probably just be ignored.

            • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              1·
              9 months ago

              I think that even that is more bad phrasing on his end than him being a pedophile. Beyond weird opinions, there is no evidence at all that he is a pedo

              • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
                01·
                9 months ago

                But there is evidence that he defends it, and that he refused to back down after being called out. He is not a good person to look up to, and willfully makes harmful public statements, and willfully stabds by them. In other words, kinda a POS

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipEnglish
    4·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Gerowen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      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.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
          0·
          9 months ago

          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.google or com.android.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
              1·
              9 months ago

              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.

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • noorbeast@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
          21·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            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…

            • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
              1·
              9 months ago

              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.

                • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
                  3·
                  9 months ago

                  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

        • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          though that get murky with overseas tech entities.

          I mostly agree, but you gotta admit the EU has been sticking it to the tech giants lately.

      • No1@aussie.zone
        0·
        9 months ago

        I’m in Australia, and when I search for Device Lock Controller in Play Store, it says “This app is not available in your region”

        This happens on 2 separate devices from different manufacturers. Both devices were purchased in Australia and have Australian ROMs

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
          2·
          9 months ago

          Check your installed apps (I left an edit in th post where to check). Just because it’s not listen in the Playstore for Australia, doesn’t mean it’s not installed.

        • Baku@aussie.zoneEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          Also in Australia and it shows that to me as well

          But going into my app list and showing system does show it

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      1·
      9 months ago

      I’m surprised it would be on the play store since presumably if you were a carrier or creditor of some kind you want this installed in a pretty clandestine way and wouldn’t want to draw attention to it by having an app store listing.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        Being on the play store means it can be updated and managed like a normal app and not stuck on whatever version shipped with the OS

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        2·
        9 months ago

        I’d assume they want to be able to update it and that’s why it needs a store listing.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 months ago

      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

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
        2·
        9 months ago

        Just because it’s not in the Playstore, doesn’t mean it’s not installed.

        It’s not listed in the Australian Playstore either, yet here we are with it making internet requests.

        It’s definitely installed.

        • Baku@aussie.zoneEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          It’s not just you, it’s phoning home for me too. Pixel 7, also Australia, bought outright from officeworks. I don’t log network reqs so I don’t know exacts, but it’s using 25kb every 3 days or so, so it’s doing something.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        So they region locked it from US, but it can still be pre-installed as a system app from AOSP. And it’s available in EU, while was meant to be in Kenya only.

      • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        9 months ago

        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.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
    3·
    9 months ago

    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:

    • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
      2·
      9 months ago

      adb shell pm uninstall --user 0 com.google.android.devicelockcontroller

      If you’re using Shelter, then in addition to that command, replace --user 0 with --user 10

      You don’t need root to do this. You can also uninstall other bloatware using this same method.

      • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
        2·
        9 months ago

        I tried this on a Pixel 7 and am getting:

        panther:/ $ pm uninstall --user 0 com.google.android.devicelockcontroller

        Failure [DELETE_FAILED_INTERNAL_ERROR]

        I also tried disable and got:

        Cannot disable a protected package: com.google.android.devicelockcontroller

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
        2·
        9 months ago

        Hero, I just have to get around to doing it 😅 (I will, but grumble, grumble this is why most people don’t bother battling for privacy)

      • _tezz@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        New to this depth of phone administration, where are you entering this command? Is there a developer CLI I should be looking for or is this done with a third party app or something?

    • Salix@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      9 months ago

      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

    • codapine@lemm.ee
      1·
      9 months ago

      Mvp comment there. I checked mine and I am in the US, on a phone I originally bought on credit. I do not have that app installed. Go figure. 🤷‍♂️

      Definitely worth checking out your app list to make sure. I wonder if it accidentally came downstream from AOSP into the alt ROMs, and that’s why it’s not in my stock, proprietary, US market, flagship Google pixel device.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
        1·
        9 months ago

        I am at such a loss, because I can see it in NetGuard, and open it’s app details from there, but it doesn’t work even appear in system apps in Shelter.

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      1·
      9 months ago

      I was able to start some of its private activities with ActivityLauncher as root. Most of them just crash immediately, but the help page is available. And yikes, they got them covered against a possible bypass, no developer tools or sideloading.

      Still disappointed this is shipped in LineageOS, but I suspect not for much longer with that publicity.

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
        12·
        9 months ago

        So, that looks like this is less insane than it sounded… This is for if you buy your phone on a payment plan? Not for creditors more generally to have a option to repossess/dispossess your phone?

        • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
          1·
          9 months ago

          That is both Google’s official version and what it looks like poking at it.

          I haven’t dug in the code, so I don’t know if this is theoretically possible for a shady carrier to enable after the fact. But it very much looks like a dormant feature nobody uses.

          I guess I could see that making sense in poorer countries where carriers might have issues of people signing up for phone plans and never paying. A carrier locked flip phone was pretty useless, but nowadays cutting your phone/data off is more of an inconvenience than a dealbreaker, you’ve still got WiFi and a nice phone.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            if you switch providers before paying it of

            Usually a financed devicd is financed through the carrier, and therefore a carrier branded device, and therefore locked to the carrier (yes they have the unlock option but compatibility tends to be far more limited than on the manufacturer unlocked version of the model)

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1·
    9 months ago

    I’m using a fresh install of GrapheneOS, and this is installed too. Not sure what that suggests, except that it’s possibly some core system level app.

  • coffeeClean@infosec.pub
    1·
    9 months ago

    The fun aspect to this is that some banks have forced customers to use an Android for all their banking ops. So:

    ① You’re late paying a bill
    ② Creditor locks your phone
    ③ You cannot access your bank to make the payment because your phone is locked

    Brilliant.

  • smb@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • rockstarmode@lemmy.world
    11·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
      2·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        1·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
          1·
          9 months ago

          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…

      • nymwit@lemm.ee
        01·
        9 months ago

        I don’t disagree with anything you say. I think it’s worth mentioning that the cost of enforcement directly informs the cost of a lease/rental situation. The cheaper they can enforce the contract, the less they can theoretically charge. If they had to get a court order to lock your phone or repo your car, they’d make it more expensive or be much more selective about who they lease/rent to. This maybe enables more people to have phones or get cars?

        I swear I’m not rooting for team “aggressive manipulative business behavior widens opportunities for the less well off”. Gross. Kind of how I hear about globalization of manufacturing stuff - “they get paid pennies!” “yeah, but that’s more than before the factory came? look what they can buy now” I know that’s a overly broad generalization but you see those arguments.

    • FritzGman@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 months ago

      What about for people like me?

      I bought my device outright. No loans, no payment plans and no reason for that functionality to exist on my phone. Yet there it is, just waiting to be taken advantage of whether there is a valid reason or not.

      This is the kind of apathy that leads to phrases like, “If only we had known” but we do … and do nothing about it.

      I can and will at least do my part for myself and encourage others to do the same.

    • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
      1·
      9 months ago

      Not an unreasonable thought, but my question is what is the process to disable? In your examples, there are legal steps/requirements to repossess those assets.

      In this case I can’t imagine the process is longer than “press the brick button and extort money”

    • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
      1·
      9 months ago

      For every single one of those scenarios, a set of legal processes need to be exhausted. This app gives the lender the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without following a set of legal processes.

      That’s dystopian mentality at it’s greatest.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      1·
      9 months ago

      Oh nono no, the world is much worse than that:

      • If you make all your car payments on time except one, the bank can still repossess your car.

      • If you pay your mortgage or rent on time every time except once, the bank can initiate the process of eviction.

      Remember: the power triangle points down

    • s38b35M5@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      8 months ago

      This is classic efficient market hypothesis brain worms, the kind of cognitive dead-end that you arrive at when you conceive of people in purely economic terms, without considering the power relationships between them. It’s a dead end you navigate to if you only think about things as they are today – vast numbers of indebted people who command fewer assets and lower wages than at any time since WWII – and treat this as a “natural” state: “how can these poors expect to be offered more debt unless they agree to have their all-important pocket computers booby-trapped?”

      -Cory Doctorow from his blog, unintentionally addressing you

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        1·
        9 months ago

        And there’s the rub. Sure, it’s a financed phone. It doesn’t follow that we have to suspend judgment on the means they resort to, to enforce their terms.