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.

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.

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

Sigh. Way too much freeze in fight, flight or freeze...

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.

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

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.

Oh jesus, that's crazy that it's on GrapheneOS too.

Edit: I'm on a no-longer-supported GrapheneOS install on a Pixel 3a. I've checked and it's not there for me. I also don't live in the US (like OP). I wonder when it would've been added?

I think it was "don't. Be evil."

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.

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

Hey man, quit repeating that. Each time we do it becomes closer to truth. Reality is what we make of it and we if tell these fucks no means no, it'll stop.

We'll own things, and we'll be unhappy about people trying to take away the things we own and paid for.

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/

Says it's not available in my country, but yet it is install and unremovable.

this is installed by default in case you want/need to enable it (company phone). it is a system app so it cannot be uninstalled, after disableing it (which probably does not do anything when it was not setup in the first place) you can uninstall the updates (so the 'old' version that's sitting in the system image is still there)