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.
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.
@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.