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.

  • @smb@lemmy.mlEnglish
    45•8 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.

    • @dev_null@lemmy.ml
      59•8 months ago

      anyone remember the time when google removed(!) their internal “don’t be evil” rule?

      I remember when media falsely reported clickbait articles that they did and people bring that up to this day. They moved it from the introduction to the closing statement. Which you can argue makes it less prominent or whatever, but it was never removed.

      Of course it makes no difference, it wasn’t followed either way, and definitely isn’t followed now. But no, it was never removed. You can see it yourself right here at the end: https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/

          • @FoxBJK@midwest.socialEnglish
            6•8 months ago

            And yet it needs to be said because even 6 years after this didn’t happen people are still convinced that it did. It’s brought up way too often and I’m beyond tired of it at this point. Hate on Google for things they actually do, not because they moved 3 words to the bottom of a webpage.

      • @smb@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1•8 months ago

        hm you have a point that it might not have been removed completely, but the problem with that point that i personally have is that this reached me too late to just believe it was really never removed. For some reasons i would not believe blindly in “evidences” that are in control of the one that is in question and could manipulate it later for such claims and also was experienced to not be trustworthy for what they say…

        saying that, there are ways to check if something was there at a time or not. the one source i know that could help here only seems to store records from 29th jun 2023 18:44:33 onwards which is too late for this.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/

        you are right, it does not make a difference in if they can be trusted, but it makes a difference in why not and what to expect if you do so despite the red flags or -as a gov- just let things go on. A person who by accident was speeding should maybe be treated differenrly than a person who intentionally(!) does so while risking others lifes. and what would be more proof of intention than a written statement or removed canary? thus such a statement does make a difference in terms of they just cannot handle their stuff, don’t care at all or maybe even have evil intentions.

        examples:

        some kids making a fire in the forest cause they don’t know the risks

        vs.

        some young adults making a fire in the woods cause they just don’t care despite knowing the risks

        vs.

        a company making fire in the woods because its cheaper to do stuff there and they lack the resouces to do it safe and someone else will pay the firefighters anyway.

        vs.

        a company stating to want to do so cause they like it despite they could afford doing it secure but just no one could or would sue them anyway.

        while i don’t want to say google is like no.4 here, to me these examples all make huge differences, no matter if the woods actually cought fire or not.

      • @nibble4bits@lemm.ee
        1•8 months ago

        it was never removed

        Context is key. It went from

        Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice

        to

        And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

        So from a “we won’t be evil” to telling others to not be evil.

        So yes, the context in which the statement was applied, means its very basis was removed.

    • Nom NomEnglish
      8•8 months ago

      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.

      • @rglullis@communick.newsEnglish
        11•8 months ago

        No one really depends on these corporate services. People are just too lazy and conformist to give up on the convenience that they bring.

        • @Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          1•8 months ago

          I agree. Also addicted. There are a few silver linings but I’m increasingly of the opinion that most technology is more trouble than it’s worth.

      • @smb@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2•8 months ago

        ok, i have to admit, that i was thinking of google-“services” free phones like the new ones from huawei. but sure android is made by google (but not “owned” by them). however i can try to “rescue” my argument by saying something like “just use a nokia 3310! they’re still working and the batterie should still last a week if not more” ;-)

        however projects like lineage os might be a good choice to have threeth (as in more than “both”), more security, less dependency from google, and also more influence on the actual software included in the build, if it’s not even possible to just compile it yourself and have freedom of changing every line of code as you wish.

        • @michael_palmer@lemmy.sdf.org
          1•8 months ago

          Huawei doesn’t even provide possibility to unlock bootloader, so it’s big NO. Currently I’m using Lineage OS on my primary phone and Linux on secondary phone. But the main problem is big amount of proprietary staff like modems, that can even work bypassing SOC and OS. I found only one phone with truly open-source hardware. It’s Liberty phone from Purism. It costs 2000$ and has perfomance comparable to 50$ Android phone.

          • @smb@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1•8 months ago

            my idea currently is to finish some projects that have priority and afterwards then look for lineage os on raspberry pi, combined with gsm modem and maybe a gps module, all powered by a slim powerbank. might make up a huge bulky phone but i almost want to start building it now. On the other hand if i wait until my other projects are finished, the whole thing might be ready made available for self assembly…

            • @michael_palmer@lemmy.sdf.org
              2•8 months ago

              I thought about it too, but I want to make a tablet based on RPI 5. I have a 3D printer, so I hope to be able to make an adequately sized case.