App lets banks lock your financed phone if you default on payment
xda-developers.com
xda-developers.com
[1] Many people buy phones on loans, because even cheap phones are quite expensive for the average Kenyan.
[2] These phone companies _already_ use device policy based apps to control usage for those who have not paid. The difference is that these apps are actually predatory, they are free to siphon off data and what not, and have the usual shadiness that you expect from apps made by relatively random corps who care way less about user privacy than big cos.
What this solution seems to be doing is providing a way to enforce the device lock policy at the OS level that actually lessens the vice-grip that these companies have on the user's phones and limits the power of the company to only block the phone from use, as opposed to the earlier model where they could do whatever the fuck they wanted on the device using their installed software.
This whole mentality of getting credit to buy pretty much everything amazes me. Heck, half the time buying from American companies they don't take actual money, only credit.
And then this, of course. The entire system is designed so that people are ALWAYS in debt, and then the hammer falls hard if for any reason one can't pay.
This app is only applicable in Kenya and was launched with the telecom there. And I'm not aware of any American company that doesn't let you pay with a check card and requires credit. It's just onerous to do bank transfers here because we have check cards. They are used like credit cards for online purchase but just deduct directly from your bank account.
I guess this is why American companies behave the way they do: it doesn't even occur to you guys that other countries use different payment systems (generally, far safer than credit cards).
I'll give a single example here, but it's full of countries with their own systems:
Here in the Netherlands, all offline stores here accept EU debit (some don't take cash, and this is becoming more normal due to COVID. Most stores don't take credit).
Local credit cards, however, cannot be used online. They have no "card number". Online stores ubiquitously take Ideal. Ideal it tied to ones bank account, and money is moved from payer to recipient instantaneously. It's super safe, since you actually need to either scan a QR code with your phone, or use a tiny OTP device you get for free from the bank.
Aside from not qualifying for a credit card here, I'd never get one because I don't _want_ a credit. I only want to use money I have, period.
In my experience as an american, to survive and have wealth, you need to be an accountant with your budget. Almost like treating your personal lifestyle as a business enterprise. Including all the wants and toys for yourself. It's a very simple thing to do even but many people forgo it it and just look at their bank account number, often forgetting the oncoming loan payment, things payed with a check, ach's, etc.
A good one people forget is student loans or cash out refinancing. That money in your bank account isn't equity. It is an asset offset by a liability. If you have 6k in cash but a 5k loan, your net worth is 1k. Most Americans just see the 6k, forget the 5k, and think that aforementioned 6k is free to be spent as they see fit.
Most Americans are just brained spendathon morons with money. Look at the money people donate to streamers! It still floors me people just make absurd donations...for what? Someone to play videogames on the internet? Not to mention juggling social status with finances, most Americans tend to opt for the status symbol as opposed to the cash in the bank. This is why you see college kids with escalades or camaros when they don't even have a reasonable job to afford a payment on them.
I don't agree with this statement.
What you and I see are those with the means to do this. I knew quite a few techie types who used to spend fairly enormous amounts on strippers.
However, the system itself is rigged against those who are barely scraping by. Here's my anecdote from the system:
I had a car seized over a single $44 parking ticket (parked longer than 3 days at the commuter train station terminal--which you can exceed by being a couple hours late after the weekend). Once it was towed (instant $200 fee tacked on) and in storage for a couple days, the fees were worth more than the car!
And they auctioned the car before the time to contest the ticket had even expired. I would have had to cough up several hundred dollars that I would not get back just to contest the ticket. "Innocent until proven broke."
If your institutional superiors yank your slave chain and you have the temerity to not show up immediately and say "Yes, massah!"--you will get the whip.
As someone in tech, this was just stupidly annoying and I'm probably going to save money--my insurance went down by almost the value of the car.
However, they swept almost thirty cars with mine. And were laughing about it.
At least one (I would actually estimate probably about half) of those belongs to someone who can't afford to lose that car but can't afford to get it back now that its been towed.
I can absorb losing a 25 year old car. Most people driving one cannot.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
No. The prevalence of cars being bought with stolen cash as a down payment is so small as to negligible.
That might be some of the reasons they claim to do it, but the reality is simple: because it makes them more money. Kickbacks (sorry, "commissions") from financing companies, or the interest earned on in-house financing is the motivator.
I had to get a new line of credit and wait a year.
That did the following:
* The first credit check for the mortgage decreased my credit score, so interest rate on the new CC - that I *had* to use - was probably higher
* Getting the CC required a full credit check, which lowered my credit score again
* The new CC also lowered the average length of credit, which lowered my credit score *again*
Sure you don't have to get a loan or credit. But if you don't, you get utterly screwed.
So many Americans associate debt as being a bad thing. Debt is just an asset offset by liability. People of all walks of life in all income brackets can successfully manage debt in a proper way that can give you a good credits score.
People who don't know how to handle debt fall into two camps: those who are up to their eyeballs in loans, and those who pay it off right away because they're afraid of interest. Credit cards and HELOC's are a bit different simply because they are devised to be continuously open and revolving. Credit cards being paid in full is a good thing purely because 30% apy is usury, flat out.
Your income means nothing to a bank when you lose your job but had no debt. Your debt means everything if you lost your job but still could make payments on time and in full. Banks like to see that. It means you're a trustworthy borrower and can make payments on time in any situation. That's exactly WHY they give these people better rates.
Also because of federal laws and equal opportunity for mortgage applications, they need to have a system that is unbiased for all. So while you think you got screwed, again, blame the 2008 USA government. They attributed somehow the mortgage crisis to racism and not enough minorities owning property and less so on the real problem: private mortgage brokers. These people are human filth that lie through their way in the process of lending, break federal laws CONSTANTLY, and maximize loan sizes without a care in the world so long as it gets approved. They make payday loans look like childs play. Yet the federal government hasn't touched these guys...
It is if so many companies only take credit cards. They just don't take money.
I do agree on you main point though: Americans are extremely uneducated financially. But I blame the system with is perfectly designed to work that way -- there's just no way to buy stuff online in the US with your actual money.
This is why you see the pendulum swing the complete opposite direction into dangerous territory (socialism, Marxism, etc.) in a deluded attempt to mend things (it won't). The real solution is to cut the issue at the root: ban lending money with interest, and things will naturally follow.
"In the near future, you can buy artificial organs on credit. But you had better make those payments..."
When so many people don't have a way of accessing the internet besides of their phones, and internet access is essential to meaningfully participate in our society and economy, these sorts of actions become less defensible. It's all about context.
On the bright side for Google/Apple/etc, they have wormed their way into our collective lives to the point where "phone culture" might start to drive legislative decisions in the same way that "car culture" did in the past decades.
...and that's been an unmitigated disaster on several levels.
I like the idea of the internet being a utility more than personal car transportation being a utility but I can still see lots of ways for it to fall apart. Aggressive content controls? Mandated DRM for everyone? Strong restrictions on what kind of devices and software you can use? Crackdowns on encryption? All for your own good, of course...
But as someone who has literally never used their warranties... I can't relate.
Regulating Google as if it was the phone company (no pun intended), the postal service, or any utility however makes a lot of sense.
Let's zoom out a little more. If a phone is so essential yet the only way people can afford it is credit, what's the real problem here? Is it the structure of the economy?
IMO, it suggests that the logical conclusion has already been met long ago, and it's not something to anticipate in some imagined dystopian future.
Some potential triggers:
Attempts to root your phone. (For example, via a honeypot root mechanism released by the manufacturer)
Using an app store not approved by the manufacturer.
Visiting “blacklisted” websites.
etc.
We might not see these kinds of applications for months or years, but there’s no reason we wouldn’t see them, other than relying on Google’s good will.
As soon as they decide to enforce hardware attestation for all devices, it's over.
Additionally, what this app does has definitely been possible forever through device management certificates; this is just an application of it.
https://passtimegps.com/industries/bhph/ and so on.
The primary use-cases are probably:
* If used in the United States prevent fraud where someone uses a stolen identity to obtain a phone and then sells it in another market (that doesn't use IMEI blacklists) once it arrives.
* If used in other countries that don't have IMEI blacklists to provide a similar functionality as those blacklists. One benefit of that is that it could reduce the credit requirements and make it easier for people with no or a poor credit to obtain a phone.
Note that this clarification was posted after the original article appeared: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-device-lock-controller...
''Oh great, so Google only supports predatory practices in countries poorer than the US. Well then, dust off the Nobel Prize.''
It's kinda weird to criticize in this way when USA already has a worse system in place.
Today, "Yeah, just let them lock your phone"
If this is okay, then what's to stop the same logic being applied to other communication-assisting devices (e.g. those speaking boards)? Wheelchairs? Prosthetics? Where does it stop? Because believe me, they will keep pushing, if it makes them money; companies with shareholders are legally obliged to.
There is no such thing. The reality is that companies that don't profit maximize are replaced by companies that do profit maximize. The effect does not have to be formalized in law.
Can we please stop with this meme? No, they are not "legally responsible" to keep pushing. Saying this removes the moral responsibility from the people making these terrible decisions.
The system is broken; our job is to work around it, establish a de-facto “shadow system” and then (if necessary) usurp the original system.
My grandparents had a phone which only allowed incoming calls (which my older cousins did a type of phone phreaking on to call out, or at least pretended to!)
A smartphone is required for thousands of essential services, up to the point where EU citizens need one to claim their right to reside in UK after brexit.
I needed it to open a bank account.
During covid you have to leave details in every restaraunt using a smartphone for contact tracing.
The government can give phones away if they want to (and they do), no need to ban other arrangements.
No cost benefit analysis neede? By this logic we would still have endentured servitude and child labour, after all they are just "other arrangements"
That doesn't necessarily mean it's a trivial purchase—far too much of the country (never mind the world) lives in poverty—but it's not something anyone in the US would pay in installments.
The high level argument I'm making is that there are few benefits and more drawbacks to this.
What's the happiest possible success story we can tell here? Someone without a phone, uses loans they can only get with this invention. They use the phone to access social networks and build friendships, access government services, apply for jobs, turn their life around.
How likely is this story? Not likely. Getting a shitty phone is cheap, and this loan wont be needed.
So what is a likelier way this will be used? Someone is unhappy with their current phone and wants an upgrade. Having a history of financial irresponsibility, it would be hard for them to get a loan, but now with this tech they can. They get their new phone and show it off to their friends a few months earlier than they otherwise could, and reduce their consumption in other areas to afford their payments. In a significant minority of cases they fail to pay on time and their phone is looked, leading to significant distress.
In addition, it makes other things possible down the line. I believe some states suspend drivers licenses if you fail to make alimony payments. With this technology such a policy could be extended to the phone. In less democratic countries it could be used to disable phones of activists.
A rhetorical question: Is a country with legal indentured servitude freer than one without?
The business model is purely built around customers who can't pay the phone off and that you must lock the phone to get it back. The end result is that a lot people who shouldn't have gotten a financed phone in the first place will get their phones locked instead of simply getting a cheaper phone.
Making financing more accessible to risky customers means more repossession. The repossession rate is simply a matter of company policy and not a matter of personal responsibility.
The economic downsides of people having their phones locked will far exceed the benefits of being able to buy a slightly better phone.
The owner just doesn't show up on the 4th of the month and change the locks and take away your fridge and microwave...
If your argument is attempting some other point, you might consider restating it more clearly, as I'm utterly failing to find anything but an implicit justification of Google's practice here.
> the app was developed by them in partnership with a Kenyan carrier, Safaricom. A spokesperson from Google told XDA that the app was developed to help Safaricom with their new “Lipa Mdogo Mdogo” (Pay Bit by Bit) financing plan which lets customers get an Android Go device with monthly financing. However, if the customer could not pay an installment after four days of its due date, Safaricom locks the device with this Google app.
Does the lock also prevent M-Pesa payments? That would effectively be a telco kill switch for digital money wallets.
I'm OK with the general concept, provided the consequences of missing a payment are stated clearly in clear language.
Does google have to verify the claim triggering the feature reduction?
It's very effective, since many services in China expect payment through those apps, so once your phone is blocked you will comply.
I have a car and even after fully paying the bank loan many years back, the bank name still shows up in the car's registration. I just recently checked them.
I have heard banks will take back a car if not paid in full.
A bank will repo a car if it isn't paid, but if the loan is paid off then their name can be removed from the title. This doesn't happen automatically in all states though, so you may need to do some legwork. However, when the time comes to sell the car having the bank's name on the title is almost worse than a salvage title. Most car dealers will absolutely refuse to take the vehicle in on trade, for example.
I can only speak anecdotally, several years ago, I was in a financial pinch, and I called up my car's finance people. I told them about my problem, and that I didn't expect to be able to continue paying for my car, and that I'd heard that they would take the car back, null the credit agreement (if car value > remaining amount owed), and sell on the car. The nice lady on the phone told me that no, that's not what they do. They'll just wait until I default on X number of payments and then take me to court. Here I was trying to be helpful, and they gave zero shits.
Is the number of ways for anyone to say "Lock billpg's phone." and for my phone to get locked as a result, exactly zero?
Sooooo... Maybe?
You're stating the obvious that there would be some impact on credit, but that's not relevant here?
Because I thought it meant that banks would be able to monitor/lock your phone, which they would presumably use as a prerequisite for installing their banking app. Basically millions of people who have no other way to remotely access banking services being forced to have their most personal details monitored by large financial institutions and allow those institutions to cut them off from their phones.
Then it seems that it means that if you buy something on an installment plan and stop paying, you lose the ability to use it to the full extent.
We can make an argument about a phone being necessary in the modern world, but the second scenario seems much less Orwellian than the first.
This implies to me, that you may have had a very different interpretation of the title, and I'm curious what it was.
I don’t know how you think that this is fine - it is not how financing works. You borrow the money to purchase the device, and go into debt with the lender. They don’t own the phone and shouldn’t have any kind of access to it - it is purely a financial dispute the moment you stop paying.
Do phone loans of this sort not function as collateralized loans? In such a loan, ownership reverts to the lender when payments aren't made, or perhaps several payments (depending on the contract).
Is that really the model you want here?
This device has complete access to your Google account, probably your photos, emails, maybe even credit cards. Smartphone has become such an important piece of personal computing that you want to buy one straight from the manufacturer or their authorized dealer and, since you're on HN, preferably with unlockable bootloader.
Very likely that's how they write the contract too. They may still sell it like "auto pilot" but the paperwork defines the actual contract.
While predatory, it's apparently acceptable in contracts.
When purchasing a phone on credit, you sign a contract which gives the lender certain rights they wouldn’t otherwise have. No “rights” are broken.
now if you complete the agreement then if becomes your device. however contracts which usually allow for remote control specify it very clearly.
What if they set it up as a "rent to own", where you can get to rent a phone for $x a month, and after N months you own it? Would it be ok to restrict functionality then?
I already avoid buying my phone hardware from my telco service provider, even if it means I have to pay more (for an unlocked product).
This is why I buy my handsets outright, not locked to a carrier (and also because of recent financial bad luck my credit rating is a total dumpster fire).
Plot twist: when you finish paying it off you still don’t really own it. You are just permitted to use it be the real owner all along, Google. Until they want paying in cash again, and they cut off your OS updates. “Nice phone you got, shame if it got a virus”.
"With the device locked, users will be able to access very limited functions in their smartphones. These include emergency calls, incoming and select outgoing calls, settings, and backup and restore service."In this case, the telcos are just using the same device management policy. They can do so because they own the phone (have physical access to it and their legal contacts allow them to do it). I don't think Google did something specific here to enable this feature for telcos.
Note that the iPhones also has similar feature. So, switching is not going to help.
Google's willingness to even entertain introducing this feature for banks points to lending apps being able to not only shame you in front of your contacts, as they currently do, but remotely lock your phone in the future.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-24/google-ba...