4 ms·

I don't understand why everyone is blaming pixel here. If it hijacked 911 and refused to let your app that provides your actual phone service dial it or similar

by ikiris 5y ago

I don't understand why everyone is blaming pixel here. If it hijacked 911 and refused to let your app that provides your actual phone service dial it or similar, people would be up in similar arms. Especially from an antitrust / competitive angle. This is what I expect to happen honestly when apps (teams in this case) register as phone services and then refuse to call some numbers. Sure there should be a way for the call handler to reject some dials and have it go to the next in chain, but honestly this seems like a mess to me overall.

zenexer 5y ago
It's the platform's responsibility to properly sandbox apps. It should not allow apps to intercept emergency calls under any circumstances. Alternatively, you could have a completely open platform, and then the onus is on Microsoft Teams and the user--but neither Android nor iPhone are like that; both choose to sandbox apps by default. When I install an app on a Pixel that isn't rooted, I expect that Android will keep it from intercepting 911.
shakna 5y ago
Emergency numbers are for emergencies. Your phone can be locked, your SIM can be invalid, but you will still be able to place an emergency call because an emergency is a crisis, by definition. I believe that there is actual regulation governing this - a phone must be able to try and place an emergency call. The expectation is that the phone will absolutely "hijack" an emergency number to ensure that it takes place. It's a critical path that _should_ ignore everything else going on with the device. If, instead, you allow any call-handler to take control of whether or not an emergency phone call takes place, you open the door for malware to prevent emergency calls. You open the door for subversive apps, like those used by abusive spouses, to fake emergency calls, and report the victim to their abuser. You allow a malfunctioning app to prevent someone from getting help before going through a debugging process, which isn't reasonable if you've fallen and broken a leg. You insert the platform, in this case Google, into situations where they may become liable for allowing someone to be in danger. Possibly even actively assisting. That's a legal bombshell that should terrify the platform.
- kaba0 5y ago
  https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/Intent#ACTION_CALL https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/Inte... It shouldn’t happen though on an architectural level at least. Also, don’t forget that Teams as a VOIP app also has a legal responsibility of handling 911. But of course in this case the OS call should win and the other branch should not even be taken.
joenathanone 5y ago
That isn’t what happened or is happening here. It’s not like the guy couldn’t make regular phone calls, if Teams had taken over as the phone service then he would have noticed the issue long ago. This is 100% an Android bug.

by ikiris 5y ago

zenexer 5y ago

It's the platform's responsibility to properly sandbox apps. It should not allow apps to intercept emergency calls under any circumstances. Alternatively, you could have a completely open platform, and then the onus is on Microsoft Teams and the user--but neither Android nor iPhone are like that; both choose to sandbox apps by default. When I install an app on a Pixel that isn't rooted, I expect that Android will keep it from intercepting 911.

shakna 5y ago

Emergency numbers are for emergencies. Your phone can be locked, your SIM can be invalid, but you will still be able to place an emergency call because an emergency is a crisis, by definition. I believe that there is actual regulation governing this - a phone must be able to try and place an emergency call. The expectation is that the phone will absolutely "hijack" an emergency number to ensure that it takes place. It's a critical path that _should_ ignore everything else going on with the device. If, instead, you allow any call-handler to take control of whether or not an emergency phone call takes place, you open the door for malware to prevent emergency calls. You open the door for subversive apps, like those used by abusive spouses, to fake emergency calls, and report the victim to their abuser. You allow a malfunctioning app to prevent someone from getting help before going through a debugging process, which isn't reasonable if you've fallen and broken a leg. You insert the platform, in this case Google, into situations where they may become liable for allowing someone to be in danger. Possibly even actively assisting. That's a legal bombshell that should terrify the platform.

kaba0 5y ago
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/Intent#ACTION_CALL https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/Inte... It shouldn’t happen though on an architectural level at least. Also, don’t forget that Teams as a VOIP app also has a legal responsibility of handling 911. But of course in this case the OS call should win and the other branch should not even be taken.

joenathanone 5y ago

That isn’t what happened or is happening here. It’s not like the guy couldn’t make regular phone calls, if Teams had taken over as the phone service then he would have noticed the issue long ago. This is 100% an Android bug.