5 ms·

Devil’s advocate - why? Banks can take your home if you don’t make mortgage payments. With this technology, there might actually be more access to devices becau

Devil’s advocate - why? Banks can take your home if you don’t make mortgage payments. With this technology, there might actually be more access to devices because lenders have recourse, reducing the risk overall.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
But banks can't remotely lock your front door until you pay up. 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.
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Rental TV sets with coin slots that required payment to turn on were common in the 70's. This isn't a new model.
  - neckardt 6y ago
    A TV is something which is nice to have, but not essential. A phone is needed for calls, which are essential. Try fixing a billing problem or banking problem without calling the company.
    - thinkingemote 6y ago
      When I was a lad our phone initially was a pay phone. I think the landlord was able to set the rate. It was free to receive calls. 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!)
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      If you just need to make simple phone calls, there are very inexpensive feature phones you can buy outright. 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.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      "Phones" are also dirt cheap. High-end mobile camera-computers are expensive. The government can give phones away if they want to (and they do), no need to ban other arrangements.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        "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"
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      A smartphone is essential for life today, claiming otherwise means you live in fantasyland. 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.
- jand 6y ago
  With 'car as a platform' and automotive corps at least toying with the idea of subscription based features (think: chip tuning and such) it seems tempting to expand this scheme to cars.
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    Starter interrupters on cars with subprime auto loans have been a thing for a quite a while.
    - jand 6y ago
      Thx for the info, i was unaware of this.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  > companies with shareholders are legally obliged to. 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.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    The moral responsibility falls onto whoever decided to set up such a share model in the first place. Yes, I am aware that that's (almost) the only way to start certain classes of company. 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.
    - throwaways885 6y ago
      This is still wrong. Shareholders are _not_ legally required to "maximise shareholder value".
- imtringued 6y ago
  >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.
vsviridov 6y ago
Because even in this case there's usually a court involved. The owner just doesn't show up on the 4th of the month and change the locks and take away your fridge and microwave...
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  FYI, while legally evictions are supposed to go through the courts, land lords regularly find illegal or quasi legal means to evict tenants quickly. This covers the range from negotiating with their tenants (which is fine), to finding process servers who are corrupt and make sure the tenants miss their court date, to simply removing the front door so that the tenants have no physical security and have to leave.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Which are ... illegal.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Yes, I did mention that.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        The practice described in TFA lacks even nominal protection of due process. The fact that where such protections do exist they are often still ignored ... does not make the original inequity any more fair. 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.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        I’m just stating what happens; all other arguments you’re mentioning are purely figments of your own imagination.
_joel 6y ago
Because you may need your phone to work or look for jobs that would then enable you to pay off the debt.
chadlavi 6y ago
The devil doesn’t need your advocacy. This is designed to help wealth accumulators punish the poor for being too poor.
im3w1l 6y ago
I'm glad you are playing the devil's advocate, everyone saying "boo" is not really constructive. 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?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  So instead of borrowing $1000 for a remote-disableable phone, you borrow $1500 for a phone that comes with less efficient on-site repo service. Is that better?
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I think ideally people should not borrow with the phone as collateral at all, since it is a necessity for modern life, rather only use their future income as security. Making repo more inefficient will disincentivize it. Are there any current phone-loans doing repo?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    That pricegap is absolutely fictional, the extra I'd have to pay to finance a phone varies from 15% to 0%, probably because the operator is getting bulk/discounted pricing.
gostsamo 6y ago
The difference is the court. At least where I live, a court is necessary before anybody has the right to repossess any property.
diebeforei485 6y ago
This is a highly regulated process. In practice people have a few months before they have to move out.

wizzwizz4 6y ago

But banks can't remotely lock your front door until you pay up. 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.

saddlerustle 6y ago
Rental TV sets with coin slots that required payment to turn on were common in the 70's. This isn't a new model.
- neckardt 6y ago
  A TV is something which is nice to have, but not essential. A phone is needed for calls, which are essential. Try fixing a billing problem or banking problem without calling the company.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    When I was a lad our phone initially was a pay phone. I think the landlord was able to set the rate. It was free to receive calls. 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!)
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    If you just need to make simple phone calls, there are very inexpensive feature phones you can buy outright. 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.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    "Phones" are also dirt cheap. High-end mobile camera-computers are expensive. The government can give phones away if they want to (and they do), no need to ban other arrangements.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      "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"
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    A smartphone is essential for life today, claiming otherwise means you live in fantasyland. 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.
jand 6y ago
With 'car as a platform' and automotive corps at least toying with the idea of subscription based features (think: chip tuning and such) it seems tempting to expand this scheme to cars.
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Starter interrupters on cars with subprime auto loans have been a thing for a quite a while.
  - jand 6y ago
    Thx for the info, i was unaware of this.
throwaways885 6y ago
> companies with shareholders are legally obliged to. 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.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  The moral responsibility falls onto whoever decided to set up such a share model in the first place. Yes, I am aware that that's (almost) the only way to start certain classes of company. 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.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    This is still wrong. Shareholders are _not_ legally required to "maximise shareholder value".
imtringued 6y ago
>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.

vsviridov 6y ago

Because even in this case there's usually a court involved. The owner just doesn't show up on the 4th of the month and change the locks and take away your fridge and microwave...

ashtonkem 6y ago
FYI, while legally evictions are supposed to go through the courts, land lords regularly find illegal or quasi legal means to evict tenants quickly. This covers the range from negotiating with their tenants (which is fine), to finding process servers who are corrupt and make sure the tenants miss their court date, to simply removing the front door so that the tenants have no physical security and have to leave.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Which are ... illegal.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Yes, I did mention that.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      The practice described in TFA lacks even nominal protection of due process. The fact that where such protections do exist they are often still ignored ... does not make the original inequity any more fair. 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.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        I’m just stating what happens; all other arguments you’re mentioning are purely figments of your own imagination.

_joel 6y ago

Because you may need your phone to work or look for jobs that would then enable you to pay off the debt.

chadlavi 6y ago

The devil doesn’t need your advocacy. This is designed to help wealth accumulators punish the poor for being too poor.

im3w1l 6y ago

I'm glad you are playing the devil's advocate, everyone saying "boo" is not really constructive. 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?

srtjstjsj 6y ago
So instead of borrowing $1000 for a remote-disableable phone, you borrow $1500 for a phone that comes with less efficient on-site repo service. Is that better?
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I think ideally people should not borrow with the phone as collateral at all, since it is a necessity for modern life, rather only use their future income as security. Making repo more inefficient will disincentivize it. Are there any current phone-loans doing repo?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  That pricegap is absolutely fictional, the extra I'd have to pay to finance a phone varies from 15% to 0%, probably because the operator is getting bulk/discounted pricing.

gostsamo 6y ago

The difference is the court. At least where I live, a court is necessary before anybody has the right to repossess any property.

diebeforei485 6y ago

This is a highly regulated process. In practice people have a few months before they have to move out.