Stalkerware won't disappear with a notification

In this context, many apps brand themselves as parental monitoring tools without actively preventing use on non-consenting adults. This situation makes it difficult to distinguish harmful actors and leaves the possibility for these apps to be used in an unintended way. Google's latest policy change does nothing to address these two problematic points.
This current policy change follows closely after another policy change by Google in July this year, that banned the advertisement of spyware on Google platforms. Some providers of spyware have managed to get around that policy and continue to advertise their products and services.
For example, Techcrunch recently found seven companies known to provide stalkerware and market their products to parents and employers were still advertising in Google search results after the policy took effect on 11 August, including FlexiSpy, mSpy, WebWatcher and KidsGuard.
There is a similar possibility that manufacturers and vendors of stalkerware will find ways to get around Google's latest policy changes.
Security risks is another important argument against the use of these spying apps. Considering the intimate and sensitive quality of the data monitored and shared, having it transit through third party servers and stored by a company represent a nonn negligeable risk. This has already been illustrated with some of the companies offering such apps having their database breached and users' personal information leaked.

The argument against legitimising Stalkerware of any kind

The argument that enterprise and parental monitoring apps are acceptable is a dangerous one that normalises the usage of surveillance technologies, sometimes from a very young age, without clear indication of consent nor sufficient control given to the targets of these apps. It also means that parents and employers are fueling an industry closely connected with gender-based and domestic violence.
These apps are the very definition of privacy invasion, letting someone peer into your messages, view your photos or check where you are. Being constantly monitored prevents people from building the intimacy they need to fully grow and express themselves and it sets a dangerous precedent to make some apps with these capabilities acceptable. It must also be noted that while enterprise providing monitoring software to their employees can be held accountable there no equivalent for parents.
We understand the deep primal instinct to protect your child, but using this software is dangerous. Parents are putting their trust in companies that do not have a great track record of keeping children’s information secure.

Are notifications really the way forward?

In tackling the transparency issue and to better inform users about the existence of monitoring apps, Google now requires monitoring apps to "...present users with a persistent notification and unique icon that clearly identifies the app."
While an honorable idea, this notification comes with a main perk that Google needs to clarify: notifications as part of the Android system can be bypassed and hidden permanently in different ways (usually through OS level settings). This renders the utility of the persistent notification almost null as installing a stalkerware app almost always requires a physical access to the phone, giving the installer the possibility to manually hide the notification.
In instances of domestic violence, having a notification tell you that stalkwerware is installed on your phone doesn't necessarily mean you can do anything about it. Deleting the app or even changing behaviour and interactions with a phone could result in consequences. In our view, it is better to work towards preventing the app from being installed in the first place.
If Google wants its new policy to have a meaninful impact about allowing apps with such intrusive features on its store it should clearly categorise them as such to warn users before installation and while the app is running. A system level indicator that can't be dismissed or regular reminders that an app with intrusive capabilities is installed should be considered as part of this new notification system to ensure the user is aware such an app is currently running on its phone. Such system level solution based on apps capabilities rather than what developpers declare and do would also affect sideloaded apps (apps installed without using the Play Store), a common way for the most intrusive apps to be installed which cicumvent Play Store policies.
If Google prefer to tighten its definition around the use cases and limit this apps to parental and enterprise monitoring, it could force the use of system level features such as work profile and family link to ensure that these apps are effectively only used in work context or by parents on their children's device. Google could, of course, choose to ban any kind of spyware app completely. The Coalition against Stalkerware is taking this stance by working with antivirus companies to flag stalkerware apps as malware.
If child monitoring apps are acceptable to Google, it should find a way to ensure installation is only made by parents on smartphones belonging to their kids. It's own family link product would be an easy way to make sure apps are installed in legitimate use cases.
In the current state of play, Google's efforts are insufficiant the tackle the stalkerware problem. A new Play Store policy is particularly inadequate given Google's track record of poor enforcement of its own politicies, whether it's too control stalkerware advertising or to prevent the spread of malwares. Privacy invasive technologies such as this one deserve more attention than a technical band aid and should be considered as the fundamental rights threat they represent.

What you can do
If you believe a stalkerware might be installed on your phone, check https://chayn.co/ or https://stopstalkerware.org/get-help/