The technical mechanism:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.devicelock
update
To be clear, I am not the OP who experienced this problem. I just linked them from here.
Don’t buy a phone on collateral credit (like from a cell provider that “gives” you a phone with service). If you must, ebay a phone and use paypal.
If you can’t afford a $1200 phone by paying for it in “cash”, you need to aim lower.
Comments from the last post indicated it made no difference to having the killswitch on their devices as per screenshots.
Still I agree, buying on credit is not a good idea.
The real problem with @Blaster_M@lemmy.world’s comment was to blame the victim. It may be sensible to blame the victim, but let’s not lose focus on the perp.
I must say Paypal shares customer data with over 600 corporations among other scummy things, so I boycott them. I also boycott eBay because the javascript required to use their website port sniffs your LAN and feeds that back to them, apart from other evils.
But most importantly, I’m not necessarily worried that I would personally get burnt by this. But just like my unwillingness to buy an Intel CPU with a management engine (or AMD’s flavor of this), I am unwilling to buy a product that was designed to work against me. I do not want to finance anti-consumer suppliers. ATM I don’t know how to check whether my version of AOS has this “feature”.
(BTW, I’m not the OP; I just linked their post here)
Sniffs your local pc to look for remote desktop and vnc ports on it. I can see this being useful in finding RAT risks, but the portscan thing is something the browser should be blocking or sandboxing.
As for PayPal, well, your cc / bank also shares lots of data.
If your threat modelling is that severe, your best bet is Tor Craigslist, a couple blokes packing heat and a briefcase of money in a place with no parking lot surveillance.
But then at that point security and safety is on you and your mates to implement.
As for PayPal, well, your cc / bank also shares lots of data.
Paypal is not a bank. Paypal is an additional MitM. Using Paypal adds another surveillance capitalist to the chain along with your bank and credit network. But indeed, the banks and credit cards are shit so I am fighting the war on cash quite hard. I’ve already been dragged into court for insisting on paying a creditor in cash. I won that case and will continue insisting on cash payments.
If your threat modelling is that severe
My threat model simply includes mass surveillance. Which is in the threat model of everyone who understands and embraces privacy. It’s worth noting that it’s not purely and infosec stance. I also object to feeding a supplier who is acting against me. The moment I detect that a supplier is working against me, I walk on ethical grounds. They have failed to earn my business. The snooping just happens to be the manner in which they are working against me.
your best bet is Tor Craigslist,
I was doing that at one time but something pushed me off. I don’t recall what… whether it was SMS verify or CAPTCHAs or phone numbers or fussy email address verifiers… something drove me off.
Can’t help you there. Buying stuff isn’t anonymous, even brick and mortar stores have cloud surveillance cams now.
Most of my shopping is done at street markets. When a big parking is filled with vans and portable tables on a weekly basis, there is no surveillance. But if I need something very particular then the cash option gets threatened. E.g. I would like to have a Flipper Zero but these are never at street markets and not even on any shelves anywhere.
I have a Flipper Zero (and case and the extra components) that I’ll 99.99% likely never use. I’d love to get cash for it but I’d be asking twice what it’s worth because I like having it on ‘what if’ grounds.
But I feel you, it’s unfortunate about the state of things. The EU just banned privacy coins. US is soon coming I’m sure. They won’t allow people to legally use them after the release of a central bank coin.
So you just don’t buy anything? Get over yourself and your unhealthy obsessions.
Ethical consumers patronize the lesser of evils, and go without if it’s feasible given only quite shitty options. Affluenza-driven OCD consumption is the unhealthy obsession that ethical consumers manage to avoid.
I’m OOP, I bought this Pixel 6 phone outright directly from Google. This system app has no business being on my phone.
And even IF it was purchased on credit, this is such an unfair power dynamic which hurts the most vulnerable in society.
Miss a phone payment, get locked out, haha have fun trying to access your bank account (many people have a phone as their primary computing device to access banking, and further, many banks might have SMS 2FA).
I say, there is no excuse for this. There were repo methods before software locks, and we’d ought to keep it that way.
It doesn’t appear to actually be used, at least in Australia, but having the functionality built in at all should be straight up illegal in a caring society.
(/s)
You’re THE object oriented programming?! I’m always asked questions about you. I’m downright starstruck!
I don’t think any of the major (I know someone will probably come in here and tell me about some tiny provider that’s only in like 2 states that does) US carriers that do phones on secured credit, they default to unsecured credit. Maybe, they have an alternative plan for people with not so great credit, but I doubt it.
Someone in the original thread said this swindle does not apply to the US. Though I’m a bit surprised… it’s the first place where I would expect this to happen.
The US carriers install their own software loads onto phones they sell, with similar functionality, they don’t need to use this mechanism.
Don’t buy a phone on random creditors that install this shit. This has nothing to do with Google.
You going to ditch Linux because they support remote management too?
I’m OOP, I bought this phone outright. Google seems to be installing this on phones by default (the actual pattern based on people’s comments seems to be more recent phones, but not all have it).
It’s even shipping within de-googled phones, at some base ASOP level (or the hardware, I dunno, not that knowledgeable), as some GrapheneOS use reported having it on their phones too.
I’m pissed because: 1. It’s installed when it shouldn’t be, 2. Gives inappropriate power to creditors, which hurts the most vulnerable.
I bought a pixel from a german carrier in germany and installed GrapheneOS on it and this ‘app’ is still installed.
Then don’t pay over time if you don’t like not owning the device.
If you don’t control it, you don’t own it.
Which is why I bought my phone. See, my pixel doesn’t have remote management. Shocking how that works when you don’t choose to rent the phone.
I also paid full price and bought it from an official store with no connection to any carriers. Installed grapheneos and can confirm it is still present, whether anyone can use it is not is irrelevant if your putting shit in my phone that could potentially harm me. And you seem to take some kind of weird moral ground thinking people who default on a payment can have their phone which is a necessity in this era, turn into a brick if they choose to. You’re lucky you can afford to but be more empathetic to those who can’t.
Nobody needs a pixel. There are plenty of phones far more inexpensive than pixels lol. I NEED A PIXEL TO LIVE!
You’re not getting it. Again:
If you don’t control it, you don’t own it.
Buying something does not mean you control it. You might have bought an Amazon Ring doorbell but if Amazon does not like your behavior they can (and will) render it dysfunctional.
If you don’t control it, you don’t own it.
Ah magical slippery slope stuff any another product 🙄👌👍
Imagine acting like having a $1000 phone is a right. If you didn’t want creditors shutting down your phone, pay for it. Apparently this is an undue burden these days.
This isn’t about my phone in particular.
The fact you cannot even imagine a situation where this kind of power would lead to vulnerable people having their lives be made even harder for missing a payment, shows how little you imagination and empathy you have.
This kind of power should lie with regulators and the justice system, not private companies.
Also why is this app ON MY PHONE WHICH I BOUGHT OUTRIGHT? ffs.
The code is inherently in the
firmware(edit: kernel) no matter how you acquire the phone.Every OS, including Linux, has a way to install remote management. Every one. You are just pissed at how the phone company implemented it. Might as well blame Linus for making the os extensible.
You’re still not grasping how free software works. Users have a right to see the code and the right to change it. They also have the right to redistribute the code. Your complaint is unfounded because not a single user of a fully free platform is forced to have remote management code installed.
Might as well blame Linus for supporting this.
If you fail to use rights granted to you by free software licenses, you can blame yourself.
This has nothing to do with Google.
Google welded anti-consumer logic into the kernel. Of course that’s on Google. Just like Intel started making CPUs with a management engine that can only work against non-corporate consumers, basically saying fuck the individuals’ needs… putting individuals at unconscionable risk without their knowledge or consent.
Consumers have decisions to make. Is a consumer happy to feed a supplier who sells them something that works against them? Some are. I’m not. Going forward they fail to earn my business because they have too many masters.
You going to ditch Linux because they support remote management too?
Linux is not locked down. Users can remove anything they want from it.
If you get Linux from work it school it uses the same exact tech. No, you can’t remove it. You don’t own the phone. That’s how credit works. Don’t like it, buy the phone. You are just pissed that creditors are using it. Welding against the consumers 🤦♂️.
You don’t own the phone. That’s how
creditnonfree software works.↑ corrected that for you.
I for one am glad that it was deemed safe for 3 year olds to be indebted to creditors.
I just thought of a new business: Baby Debt.
We trick children into signing contract so we can legally control them financially for life.
Baby Debt: It’s Not Illegal
Since this software comes preinstalled and you can’t get rid of it, that means it is illegal to sell this phone to anyone under the age of 3.
That or the software itself is illegal which sounds a little more accurate.
Wasn’t this app some exclusive thing for a marketing scheme in Kenya for Android Go? If so… maybe your phone has a… African history?
https://blog.google/intl/en-africa/products/android-chrome-play/growing-access-and-inclusion-with-more/I bought it practically on launch in Australia, directly from Google (I’m OOP), so I’d be surprised unless there was some last minute redirection of inventory from Kenya to Australia ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Everyone in this thread is wild. Buying a phone on credit makes sense with how expensive they are. How else can Google protect themselves though? Just like cars get repossessed if you didn’t pay, this is a two-way street. Otherwise people could have a phone sent to them and then never pay anything for it.
If the creditor wants to collect on a debt, there is a court process for that. I’ve used it. It works.
Locking the phone is not repossession. It does nothing other than sabotage the device the consumer may need to actually make the payment. The phone remains in the buyer’s possession and useless to the seller.
Power is also misplaced. What happens when the creditor decides to (illegally) refuse cash payments on the debt? Defaulting is not necessarily the debtor’s fault. This in fact happened to me: Creditor refused my cash payment and dragged me into court for delinquency. Judge ruled in my favor because cash acceptance is an obligation. But this law is being disregarded by creditors all over. If the creditor had the option to sabotage my lifestyle by blocking communication and computing access, it would have been a greater injustice.
#WarOnCash
I guess a closer analogy would be rental storage. If you don’t pay your mini storage bill, in some regions the landlord will confiscate your property, holding it hostage until you pay. And if that fails, they’ll even auction off your contents.
So in the case at hand the creditor is holding the debtor’s data hostage. One difference is that the data has no value to the creditor and is not in the creditor’s possession. It would be interesting to know if the contracts in place legally designate the data as the creditor’s property. If not, the data remains the property of the consumer.
This is covered by human rights law. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 ¶2:
“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
If the phone user did not sign off on repossession of their data, and thus the data remains their property, then the above-quoted human right is violated in the OP’s scenario.
Lemmy moment. Claims human rights are being violated because smartphone gets locked
He presented his logic and included well-recognised definitions and sources. He literally could not have done better without a peer review in the field 🤣🤣
So: shut up bitch
Don’t try to strawman this. Human rights are violated when someone is deprived of their property (their data in the case at hand). If food is withheld from starving people in Gaza, your argument is like saying:
“Claims human rights are being violated because someone failed to drive a truck”
Someone not paying a phone bill doesn’t equate to someone bombing Israel
They’re not at odds. We don’t have to choose between protecting UDHR Art.3 and Art.17. It’s foolish to disregard some portion of the UDHR needlessly and arbitrarily.
I agree that this makes sense in the context of a creditor securing a loan, but I disagree that getting your phones on credit makes sense.
New, flagship devices can be had around $500 US, which is attainable for most Americans in a fairly short timeframe. Spending years locked into a carrier contract where you don’t own your device just doesn’t make sense unless you’re spending thousands on a foldable device or something.
can be had around $500 US
attainable for most Americans in a fairly short timeframe
This is a frankly deranged take considering that 40% of americans dont even have the funds to save for a $400 emergency as of May 2023
For people who know as much about technology as most people in this discussion the thing to do if short of cash would be to buy a cheaper phone. I recently got myself a quite decent Note9 for $109AU and I could have got something even cheaper if I needed to. But many people aren’t as well informed, the above article is one example of people who are less well off being scammed by a corporation.
You have a pixel phone. Just install Calyx OS on it.
Even if this would help (I’m OOP, and according to some commenters it’s still installed on their phones running other OSes), I’m still outraged at the concept and the fact it’s installed by default.
Plus, “just” installing a different OS is not a terribly mass-market friendly thing.
It should be regulated against by governments. The EU is slowly heading in the right direction. We’re letting these tech companies do whatever the fuck they want to.
Most people don’t have the time or knowledge necessary to make their digital lives entirely private.
This has “stop global warming by making personal choices” vibes to it.
I want privacy by default, and I’m not going to apologise for that.
I agree with you 💯 percent.
It should be regulated against by governments. The EU is slowly heading in the right direction. We’re letting these tech companies do whatever the fuck they want to.
I wonder if it already is illegal. Have you looked into that? Did they disclose this “feature” in any of the agreements or literature that came with the device so that you could return it for a refund? Maybe you have a good legal case here.
I don’t think that necessarily helps. I’m running GrapheneOS and “DeviceLockController” is installed there as well. From what I read, it’s because it’s part of AOSP.
I did take all permissions and from the system logs it reads that this app never has been used or tried to send anything to begin with.
I’m running CalyxOS and cannot find this app. Is it listed among regular apps?
No. It’s a system app. Look for “DeviceLockController” or “com.android.devicelockcontroller”
Thanks, apparently not installed anyways :)
To be clear I linked to someone else’s post. I don’t have the Pixel phone.
Ah my bad. I thought I read you had a pixel phone.
Is that the one that was the confirmed FedOp?
What does that mean?
One of the “secure” android was a honeypot, can’t remember the name. A false flag, a false beacon , a false sanctuary.
Why can I not find that post on beehaw? Some ActivityPub weirdness?
beehaw.org defederated from lemmy.ml. And I don’t blame them. I actually try not to post to lemmy.ml or any of the Cloudflare-centralized nodes (lemmy.world, sh.itjust.works, lemm.ee, etc) but it slipped my mind when I posted here.
(edit) sorry, i’m confused. I thought beehaw.org defederated from lemmy.ml, but both the post herein and the original are on lemmy.ml yet you can reach this one. So I’m missing something. I wonder if you are able to see infosec.pub-mirrored content and maybe the original community has no infosec subscribers? hard to say.
deleted by creator
@coffeeClean
Won’t disabling that not allow me to find my device and to disable the phone remotely if stolen?Probably. But if you want that anti-theft feature, I wonder if you could disable it and then install another app for that which serves you alone. Whatever you install probably wouldn’t be baked into the kernel but probably a good trade-off.
@coffeeClean Not sure. I wonder if these other roms support the crypto in the Google Pixel chip or support the camera well. Somehow I doubt it. 15 years ago I was into playing with custom roms, but they usually didn’t support the hardware completely, especially the camera. I mean it would work, but the quality wasn’t good as the native rom.
I wouldn’t choose a custom rom on the sole basis of anti-theft. My ½-baked suggestion was simply disable the playstore framework (so it’s present but just dead code) and installing an app on the side.
Anyway, I have no interest in anti-theft bricking myself. I don’t envision ever having a phone where i would care about the hardware and would not likely spend more than $50 on a phone. Exceptionally I could one day get a Fairphone. But remote bricking does not tempt me. Making the phone a brick more quickly gets the phone into a landfill as it becomes useless for everyone.
It’s worth noting why phones get stolen. Even cheap phones are getting stolen. It’s not for the hardware. It’s because SIM registration makes it hard for criminals to get anonymous burner chips. So they steal phones just for GSM chips that are registered to someone else.
@coffeeClean
I don’t know but that article probably only applies to 'murica, if it’s even accurate. I’m doubtful. Doesn’t apply to Canada, that’s illegal practice hete I’m sure.I think the author said he was in Australia… but he felt like it’s an encroachment by the US in some way.
