[HN Gopher] Issue dialing 911 on Google Pixel 6 cell phones
___________________________________________________________________
Issue dialing 911 on Google Pixel 6 cell phones
Author : vpt
Score : 293 points
Date : 2022-11-25 05:38 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.actionnewsjax.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.actionnewsjax.com)
| mahathu wrote:
| > "So this is what happens on my brand new $1,000 Google phone
| when I try to call 911."
|
| How old is this story? The news report is from 2 days ago, but
| surely in 2022 the person filming the TikTok video wouldn't call
| a Pixel 6 a "brand new $1,000 Google phone"?
| Caporal wrote:
| Old enough to influence people a few days before Black Friday I
| guess.
| jakub_g wrote:
| It's not $1000 anymore but you can still buy "brand new" Pixel
| 6 in retail stores in EU.
| happymellon wrote:
| We don't call 911.
| iggldiggl wrote:
| Which leads to a different problem, because at least a few
| Android versions ago (or maybe even today?), the emergency
| call dialler didn't necessarily recognise all the different
| country-specific emergency numbers. E.g. in Germany the
| European standard of 112 is only natively used for fire
| brigade and ambulance, whereas the police's native
| emergency number is 110 - but you couldn't dial the latter
| from the lockscreen without unlocking your phone.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| From a mobile, you can. And anyways, I would actually be
| even less confident that Google correctly implemented 112
| support than 911.
| dontbenebby wrote:
| samcal wrote:
| 911 generally does perform their job well. Your issue is with
| the police and is valid, but there are many other public
| services an operator will route to you (ambulance,
| firefighter...)
| nunez wrote:
| i'm REALLY surprised that this is still a problem, especially
| after the last 911 fiasco (the one where Teams was preventing
| users from dialing 911 due to call routing)
|
| it feels like android in general has had issues with 911/112. i
| remember cyanogenmod ROMs (when that was a thing) having issues
| as well.
| partiallypro wrote:
| As a 6 Pro user, even if you could get ahold of 911 your signal
| may just drop out entirely in the middle of your call. I've never
| had a phone that drops signal so often. It's insane. I used the
| Black Friday sales to get a new phone to replace this one for
| that reason specifically.
| exabrial wrote:
| On my pixel 4 it failed to call 911 when i needed it once. The
| phone literally crashed and hung up.
|
| But here you know what worked really well? Google tracking me all
| over the Internet... that never once failed!
| ars wrote:
| Google tracking fails me all the time. I check my timeline on
| Google maps, and it's wrong more often than it's right.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Well, I'm being pedantic but how do you know Google tracking
| never once failed? It could fail 50 times a day in strange
| circumstances but work just often enough to keep the
| approximate trail without you being aware. In fact, I'm nearly
| certain that just due to the ubiquity of Googles tracking, it's
| vastly more likely to break than the phone services. Now, each
| of these have very different meanings and severity and all
| concern is certainly warranted but if you do, I would be
| interested in how you're tracking google's tracking
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Most of the discussion here is related to 911-specific bugs in
| Pixel. But there's also generic cellular communications bugs, and
| based on what I see on Reddit it's widely experienced but not
| well understood. The symptom I see is nothing cellular works
| sometimes until I put the phone in airplane mode and back again.
| Networking software bug? Problem with the cellular tower? I have
| no idea. But it seems very common on Pixel 6. I probably won't
| buy another Google made phone because of it.
| p1mrx wrote:
| There ought to be a test number that behaves like 911 except for
| the "emergency" part at the end.
|
| This entire class of problems wouldn't exist if anyone could run
| an integration test.
| layer8 wrote:
| I'm sure we'd then get bugs where the test number is called
| instead of the real 911.
| elwell wrote:
| I had the opposite problem with an iPhone last week: it called
| 911 all by itself. I was in a different room so I didn't hear any
| warnings. Instead, I heard the "It's the police! Open up!"
| accompanied by banging on the door around midnight.
|
| Since I had recently washed the phone (it's supposed to be water-
| resistant), my theory is that some water got into it and was
| completing the contact for the side button. There's an iPhone
| 'feature' that does an emergency SOS if you hold down the side
| button for about 10 seconds. I've since turned that feature off.
| Unfortunately the "side button being constantly held down"
| problem is persisting for me, sending the phone into recovery
| mode whenever it turns on; I may need to scrap the phone.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Google Pixel phones pose an unacceptable safety risk to
| vulnerable Americans. This product should be recalled and future
| Google phone products should be refused certification until they
| document and enact a plan to do QA. And no, "engineers write
| their own unit tests" does not count as QA for safety-critical
| software.
|
| I luckily don't own one, but if I did I'd be reporting it to
| every regulator I could find. https://www.saferproducts.gov/
| dm319 wrote:
| I'm all over the place with pocket computing devices and remain
| confused. I once has an iphone. Beautifully crafted, both inside
| and out, but so frustratingly locked down that I was desperate to
| leave it behind. They have progressively opened up the platform,
| but it always lags behind (I remember I couldn't access the cloud
| storage from anything other than a mac).
|
| My favourite devices have been more alternative. E90 running
| symbian, which was fairly 'open' for its time - I could install
| any software, proper multitasking. The N900 also, full linux
| system, great phone. But then the apps I find useful, are often
| not available for that platform.
|
| At the moment I'm on Pixel, which has been a good balance between
| being well supported, while still fairly open. I can sideload
| apps, run a linux distro in the form of termux. As a bonus the
| camera is great. I have to remind myself that while it might not
| quite compare to iphones in terms of refinement and hardware, I
| do at least have more freedom on the platform, and it's easy to
| take that for granted until you lose it.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Same. In the end I choose to die on the freedom hill, adjacent
| to the privacy hill. I wish there were more options.
| _def wrote:
| Privacy? https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-dsid-
| analytics-pers...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'm aware. They've been declining on that front. Without
| the privacy selling point they're the worst of both worlds.
| No privacy, security that falls behind Pixel phones, and no
| freedom.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I'm in a similar position. I used iPhone for years but after
| they started to remove important apps from AppStore I decided
| to move to pixel. UX is terrible and unpolished. Hardware is
| just bad. But I can sideload and that's more important.
| nvr219 wrote:
| What app did they remove that you used?
| generalpf wrote:
| Oh, you know the ones.
| komali2 wrote:
| No I don't, which do you mean?
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Fortnite is another good example, or a native build of
| Firefox with its own rendering engine, or video game
| emulators..
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Some Russian apps that most people probably don't care
| about, but I do.
| vpt wrote:
| Here is the associated Google Pixel subreddit thread:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/z3knqv/action_...
| simfree wrote:
| I don't think this is newsworthy at this point. My Pixel 6 and
| Pixel 7 both are unreliable when trying to call 911, calling
| with an over the top app or dialing the PSAP's number directly
| are the only workarounds.
|
| Google doesn't give a fuck about this issue. I have filed
| repeated support cases over the past year with Google about
| this when using T-Mobile or Verizon.
| conradfr wrote:
| I would say a life or death years old bug still present in
| the newest model (on which I'm writing this) is newsworthy.
|
| Although I'm not sure how there's no legal repercussion here?
| fanatic2pope wrote:
| I have a Pixel 7, and I am curious how do you test the
| reliability of calling 911? I assume you don't actually call
| 911 and say "just testing!"
| creshal wrote:
| Google already didn't give a fuck about 911 problems (or 112
| in my case) on the Pixel 4a, those have been unfixed since
| release.
|
| Google doesn't seem to care that dead people don't make for
| good customers.
| amelius wrote:
| And FTC doesn't give a fuck about choice for consumers.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Pixel 6 is the last Google phone I bought, after owning every
| single Pixel up until that point.
|
| A company who fucks up this badly is not worth my money.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| Yoric wrote:
| How so?
| hh3k0 wrote:
| Club of Rome often lamented human overpopulation, so the
| user you've been replying to will undoubtedly share some
| far-fetched conspiracy theory that won't make a lick of
| sense.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I should have prefaced my post with "a modest proposal"
| yreg wrote:
| That makes little sense. "It's the users who are wrong"
| ideology applies when you tell the customers they are
| holding the iPhone 4 wrong. Or when you ask them whether
| they don't have phones when you reveal the next Diablo as
| mobile-only.
|
| No company would argue that users are wrong and that they
| are not supposed to dial emergency services.
| Aissen wrote:
| Most interesting is a user story[1] shared giving an idea of
| how often this happens: 3 times over 8 months, with ~5 calls a
| week. We could round it at around 1% error rate. It's both
| relatively low (as a chance it happens to you), and extremely
| high (I can't imagine how many people might have the issue and
| not be aware of it!).
|
| I'm sure there are other conditions that aren't identified
| here, but this definitely warrants more regulatory scrutiny.
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/z3knqv/comment...
| charonn0 wrote:
| > I contacted Glynn County emergency services about Macleod's 911
| issue. The county said it "did not find any record of these calls
| registering in our system during the time in question" despite
| Macleod's phone log showing she called 911.
|
| I was under the impression that (successful) 911 calls aren't
| recorded in the call log.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Why are apps allowed to take over the main dialer?
| rerenjkl wrote:
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's not a network problem. It's a side effect of that Android
| version letting apps register to take over calling functions
| (for, e.g., VOIP purposes), when then makes emergency calls
| fail if any of the apps that have registered that functionality
| don't handle it properly.
| rerenjkl wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea Android apps
| could intercept calling functions like that. I can see the
| benefits, but I'm amazed devices are allowed to be that open
| ddalex wrote:
| Do you mean users install apps that are buggy, and this is
| somehow Androids fault? At the same time, if Android wouldn't
| allow VoIP apps, it would be somehow at fault again ?
| theshrike79 wrote:
| There is no reasonable way a normal user could suspect that
| buying a phone from one of the biggest companies in the
| world (Google) and installing a very common application
| from another huge company (Microsoft) will result in their
| phone no longer being able to dial the emergency number.
|
| This is most definitely Google's fault for allowing
| emergency calls to be overridden and not having a fallback
| if the override fails.
| zinekeller wrote:
| Most custom versions of Android (in this context, non-Pixel
| phones) have actually hardcoded that all emergency calls
| (especially in lock screens) be routed into a different,
| lightweight, for-emergency-only dialer. Google has known
| about this but didn't do anything to also provide a
| hardcoded override.
|
| Edit: and apparently recent Android versions, but I can't
| confirm that.
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's absolutely Android's fault that it allows a buggy app
| to interfere with emergency calls, and Google agrees, given
| that in later Android versions they tore out the code that
| allowed anything but OS handling for emergency calls placed
| through the default phone app.
| GrabbinD33ze69 wrote:
| Maybe this is a 'straw man', but this is what I refer to when I
| say I prefer iPhones for their reliability and stability, or at
| least what I perceive to be more reliable than most android
| phones. The closest issue I can recall on iPhone was that issue
| where saying some nonsense to siri caused an erroneous dialing of
| 911.
|
| I get it, this is sorta a one off thing, but it irks me when
| super basic functionality of the phone is unstable, such as
| making a literal phone call.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| In these United States, there are now two emergency numbers which
| can be dialed: 911 and 988, for mental health crises.
|
| The last time I removed the SIM from my Android phone, I tested
| 988; unsurprisingly I was not able to contact the service because
| the phone denied access.
|
| If your phone doesn't recognize 988 as a bona fide, legitimate
| emergency number, it's time to request a firmware update. 988 has
| been years in the making, and firmware developers should have
| made it a priority to put it on the whitelist.
| canbus wrote:
| This kind of thing makes me want to use a 'dumbphone' as my daily
| driver..
| murpydee wrote:
| I actually had another emergency-call-related bug a few days ago
| on my Pixel 5 after accidentally triggering the SOS call feature.
|
| My device got stuck in a reboot loop -- it would reach the
| colored google "G" logo in the startup process, then reboot
| again. Every handful of cycles, it would reach the lock screen,
| attempt to start an emergency call, then reboot again.
|
| I had to get my device to the debug fastboot screen just to kill
| the loop
| hopfog wrote:
| I've seen many reports of this on Pixel phones but I experienced
| something very similar on another Android phone (it was either
| Moto G5 or OnePlus One):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29494820
| djhworld wrote:
| Are there reports of similar problems outside of the US, e.g.
| dialling 999 in the UK from a pixel phone?
| Havoc wrote:
| FYI memorizing 112 is probably a better idea. It's baked into
| GSM spec and gets redirected to the right country end-point
| (like 999 for UK) in most of the world.
|
| Same difference while in UK, but good habit for travelling.
| Archipelagia wrote:
| For my experience, when possible it's better to use the more
| direct number - that extra layer of redirection takes only a
| minute or two, but in an emergency that can be a lot.
| mekkkkkk wrote:
| How can a redirection take minutes?! And do you at least
| get some relaxing elevator music for you to remain calm
| while watching your house burn down?
| Jemm wrote:
| Unusable website
| [deleted]
| crooked-v wrote:
| This article, dating back to January, lays it out pretty clearly:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-fixes-nightma...
|
| > If you're logged out, launching Microsoft Teams 10 times will
| result in 10 duplicate PhoneAccounts from Teams clogging your
| phone. Teams shouldn't do this, and Microsoft's update stopped
| Teams from doing this, but a bunch of duplicate PhoneAccounts
| also shouldn't be enough to bring Android's phone system to its
| knees.
|
| > Next bug: when picking a PhoneAccount to run the emergency call
| through, [...] it's possible for this to result in an integer
| overflow or underflow, and now the phone subsystem is going to
| crash.
|
| > A third bug in this mess is that Microsoft Teams does not even
| register itself as an emergency call handler.
|
| > An update is not arriving for the Pixel 6 yet. Google's newest
| flagship is going though a bit of an update crisis at the moment.
| The December 2021 update was pulled due to unrelated "mobile
| connectivity issues" (phone calls don't work). While Google
| scrambles to fix everything, the next Pixel 6 update with this
| 911 fix is due in "late January." Until then, it's normal to be
| on the November patch. Both of Google's "early January" and "late
| January" patch timelines seem incredibly slow for a bug that
| could cause users to literally die.
|
| If the OP article is correct, then apparently this still hasn't
| actually been fixed yet.
| sitkack wrote:
| Bugs like these can arise from using unsigned values as
| intermediate results in a computation. Just because the source
| and dest values are positive integers doesn't mean that results
| don't go briefly negative.
| alistairSH wrote:
| And why the hell does Google/Android allow 3rd party emergency
| phone service handlers at all?
|
| Something critical like 911 should have one handler. Heck, I'd
| argue the phone system shouldn't be allowed to be overloaded by
| a 3rd party at all. That just sounds like a bowl of buggy
| spaghetti.
| bragr wrote:
| >And why the hell does Google/Android allow 3rd party
| emergency phone service handlers at all?
|
| It doesn't, but the interaction of registering a bunch of 3rd
| party voip services interacts with the emergency call system
| in interesting ways, as explained in detail in the links Ars
| Technica article.
| jpollock wrote:
| Probably related to [1]:
|
| "The FCC requires that providers of interconnected VoIP
| telephone services using the Public Switched Telephone
| Network (PSTN) meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations. E911
| systems automatically provide emergency service personnel
| with a 911 caller's call-back number and, in most cases,
| location information.
|
| To reduce possible risks to public safety, the FCC requires
| interconnected VoIP providers to:
|
| - Automatically provide 911 service to all customers as a
| standard, mandatory feature. VoIP providers may not allow
| customers to "opt-out" of 911 service. "
|
| Can Teams make phone calls?
|
| [1] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/voip-and-911-service
| theptip wrote:
| > Can Teams make phone calls?
|
| Yep: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/voip-
| voice-o...
| alistairSH wrote:
| From a user perspective, I think I'd expect one of two
| things on a cell-phone... - Teams (or other 3rd party)
| isn't allowed to make telephone calls. The phone provides
| this service. Teams can continue making voice "calls" to
| other Teams users, it just can't initiate telephone calls
| via PSTN.
|
| - Teams (or other 3rd party) is allowed to take over
| calling duties from base software. But, only one call
| handling system can be active at a time.
|
| Personally, I'm not sure why I'd want multiple handlers, or
| even a single alternate handler, so I'd pick the first
| option. If I'm missing a common use case, I'd like to hear
| it.
| jpollock wrote:
| The problem the FCC is solving is:
|
| Person is in an emergency, they pick up the closest
| device and dial 911.
|
| That needs to go through, complete with location
| information.
|
| The specific triggers for the rule were old-landline
| handsets plugged into VoIP boxes routing through carriers
| that didn't have E911 connections. A child would pick up
| the phone, dial 911, the other end wouldn't have the
| address, and the child wouldn't know it either.
|
| This rule would appear to include _anything_ capable of
| making a call, including things that don't look like
| phones (tablets).
|
| That is mixed with the desire for carriers (and others)
| to intercept long-distance and other calls (no signal,
| cheaper rates, etc).
|
| Microsoft used to sell something which would
| automatically intercept and redirect calls to other
| private numbers off of the cell network. This allowed
| higher quality codecs and lower costs.
|
| If the handset maker only supports 911 when there is a
| cell signal, then this runs afoul of the FCC rule. The
| handset could be used in a location with wifi (but no
| cell signal), and be used to make calls. Someone picks up
| that handset, tries to dial 911 and is denied.
|
| Microsoft, since they're a VoIP provider, needs to deal
| with E911. Google, needs to be fault-tolerant in the 911
| dialing path and have good fallbacks.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I understand that. But MS shouldn't have to solve "route
| E911 on an Android phone". Google has to solve that for
| the default dialer/call handler. I don't understand why a
| call made from default Android would ever route back to
| MS Teams. All calling (at least for E911 and similar)
| should go through the default call handler via API. Or
| something like that. It sounds like Google has a really
| convoluted, error-prone implementation. I'm sure they had
| a good reason at the time, but looking in from the
| outside today, my first thought is "WTH were they
| thinking?"
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _If the OP article is correct, then apparently this still
| hasn 't actually been fixed yet._
|
| Or there are two completely different 911-related issues.
| paganel wrote:
| If I get this right, we have a $1+ trillion company not being
| able to build a basic functionality into their phones? (like
| "phone calls don't work" and the whole calling 911 issue). And,
| apparently, that was happening because of a shitty app built by
| another $1+ trillion company? In terms of innovation the US
| tech scene is toast with these dinosaurs.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Bugs happen everywhere, to everyone. The fact that it
| happened is not a surprise - the lack of an immediate fix is
| what is concerning
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| But you have to agree the state of MS Teams is an absolute
| shitshow. The quality is like it's put together by a bunch
| of guys coding on their spare time if they feel like it.
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| That would be a passion project. I find it hard to
| conceive of Teams as a passion project, except possibly
| by people who have a passion for hating the world.
| macintux wrote:
| If Microsoft has a penchant for hiring people passionate
| about hating the world that would explain a _lot_ of
| their software over the years.
| Marsymars wrote:
| If MS software is the worst software you've used, you're
| living a pretty good life.
|
| There are businesses running on software that makes Teams
| look like a paragon of performance, stability and user-
| focused UI/UX.
| bogwog wrote:
| > There are businesses running on software that makes
| Teams look like a paragon of performance, stability and
| user-focused UI/UX.
|
| Those (probably) aren't trillion dollar businesses.
| mc10 wrote:
| SAP has a market cap of $135B, not a trillion dollar
| business but in the top 100 largest companies in the
| world.
| toss1 wrote:
| or if something about working at MS instills in people a
| passion for hating the world...
| paganel wrote:
| When it's a matter of life and death, like in this case,
| bugs shouldn't just happen. If your sw product gets too
| complex so that you're not able to control anymore of life-
| threatening bugs then you should make sure that said
| product gets rid of its complexity so that the engineers
| can have a better grasp of it.
|
| If that still doesn't happen then it's a job for the
| regulators to step again because, again, this is a life and
| death situation.
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| How could the regulators possibly improve this situation?
| kulahan wrote:
| You can't do much about the stuff out there now, but you
| can make punishments so painful companies simply regulate
| themselves. It's all math to them - if the punishment is
| more expensive than doing it right the first time, it
| gets done right the first time, usually.
| acdha wrote:
| Suppose that the penalty for this was that you were
| forced to halt sales and offer a full refund to all
| purchasers the original price until your phones'
| emergency function worked. I'd bet that Google would
| magically be able to repurpose some of their billions in
| profits to hiring some QA testers.
| mixedCase wrote:
| Banning the product and forcing the manufacturer to pay
| damages to every single person they sold that garbage to,
| for example.
| komali2 wrote:
| I would love this, though there's very few entities in
| the world that seem to have this level of sovereign power
| - most regulatory agencies / governments don't seem to
| have the political will, drive, ambition, or simply
| ability to do something like this.
|
| Let's say for the USA, the chair of the FCC
| (hahahahahahahahaahah) decided to do this, _could_ they
| even? Isn 't power dispersed enough to make this
| impossible? (immediately challenged by courts, or, unable
| to determine which regulatory agency in USA actually has
| authority to do this, etc?) Or say an American state,
| perhaps Texas, decides to protect its citizens by
| threatening to ban sales of google phones if they don't
| fix this bug tomorrow, and force a recall, would that be
| possible? I mean... _via what mechanism_ could that even
| happen? A governor executive order immediately challenged
| by a local court or even the USA federal government? A
| state law, that gets vetoed? Etc.
|
| This leaving aside the fact that Google can just do fat
| campaign donations to whoever can throw a monkeywrench
| into this kind of consumer protection action.
| polynox wrote:
| You are probably overthinking this.
|
| As much as the deregulatory agenda is ascendant, the FCC
| does have authority to regulate ... wireless carriers and
| interstate commerce.
|
| In particular, 47 USC 618(a)(6) provides an explicit
| right of mandamus if the FCC fails to act (I suppose this
| is mainly for venue). I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty
| sure you could compel the FCC to, however indirectly,
| compel Google to act.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Why people keep saying 1B+, 1T+ compagny, if you don't want
| bugs don't use software, the size of the compagny does not
| matter.
| dr_hooo wrote:
| Of course it matters, why such a black and white statement?
| The assumption is that a well funded company should be able
| to finance a quality assurance team which fixes bugs the
| developers create
| giantrobot wrote:
| Market cap is not revenue. While Google and Microsoft do
| have a lot of revenue, saying "trillion dollar company"
| is a tacit suggestion they're sitting on a trillion
| dollar dragon hoard.
|
| Their profitability compared to profits is a more
| logically consistent comparison. If they recognize a
| billion dollars in profit while shipping brain dead bugs
| it goes to demonstrate their lack of respect for
| customers.
| cycomanic wrote:
| And in another thread people talk how "real programmers don't
| need unit tests", oh the irony.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| "With thousands of people using your phones, it'll be clear
| pretty quickly when something as crucial as 911 stops
| working. You shouldn't need tests for that."
| zackmorris wrote:
| Normally failures like this would be addressed through
| legislation. Perhaps a $10,000 fine per 911 call failure
| incident. With regulatory capture and half the voting
| population against regulation, this is unlikely to happen
| though.
|
| Short of that, boycotts could be organized. Maybe a senior
| executive at T-Mobile loses their kid in a car accident
| because the 911 call didn't go through. So they decide to
| drop Google for 2 years or something.
|
| Soon this sort of B2B boycott could be illegal:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/11/alec-anti-
| po...
|
| More and more avenues that help common working people stand
| up to monopoly/duopoly, wealth inequality and other forms of
| power imbalance are being deemed political.
| alexchantavy wrote:
| Not sure why you're getting downvoted - I think your comment
| is fair. As said in the OP article "911 is not a favor to us.
| It's required".
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Jesus, Teams really is the worst software in existence.
| Microsoft keep outdoing themslves.
| [deleted]
| nsteel wrote:
| As an end user today with a Pixel 6, what am I supposed to do if
| I can't rely on them to get this right? I _NEED_ 999 to work. If
| not for me, then the people around me. Am I supposed to go and
| ring 999 to test it after every major update until Google gives
| an actual statement on the condition of their shitty product that
| has failed the most important use-case? That doesn 't scale and
| if nothing else, Google should understand a scaling problem...
| Marsymars wrote:
| > As an end user today with a Pixel 6, what am I supposed to do
| if I can't rely on them to get this right?
|
| Buy a Pixel Watch! I'm sure emergency dialling won't be broken
| on both the watch and phone at the same time!
|
| But in seriousness, I personally just accept that cell phones
| aren't a bulletproof way of accessing emergency services. At
| any point in time, my phone could be out of service, out of
| battery, dropped and broken, unconnected due to a network
| outage, etc. An emergency services bug is a qualitative
| difference, not a quantitative one. I qualitatively _increase_
| my odds of being able to access emergency services by running
| redundant systems - I have a VoIP landline, my partner has a
| cell phone with a different OS /mobile network than me, I carry
| a PLB if I'm in the wild. (I plan on getting an LTE-capable
| watch at some point - the Pixel Watch is quite unappealing for
| the price though.) (Will probably switch from PLB to sat
| messenger when the battery on this expires, which will double
| as an emergency service contact backup.)
| ChoHag wrote:
| jerlam wrote:
| Do you have any local emergency non-999 numbers? I have saved
| the numbers for the local emergency dispatch numbers for the
| cities around me, along with the non-emergency ones. This is
| also where directing specific people around you to call 999 (or
| calling on another person's phone) is a backup plan.
| theCrowing wrote:
| Ah yes... the yearly pixel/nexus emergency call bug. I would say
| it's a total shame for Google that they really have repeating
| probably life threatening bugs in their phones but they don't
| seem to care at all.
| fbdab103 wrote:
| I was a lifelong Android user, but after I heard about this, I
| purchased my first iPhone this year. Completely absurd that
| Google refuses to prioritize safety. While I am mad the bug
| happened (there should be a dedicated test suite for safety
| features) - I am furious that there is no stop-the-world
| escalation to get the problem resolved.
|
| I hate so much about the Apple ecosystem, but screw Google. If
| it is not a KPI product promotion package, evidently it is not
| worth the time.
| cube00 wrote:
| Google's reply to the reporter in the story says it all: _We
| don 't have any comment to provide._
|
| They do not care, people need to stop trusting their lives to
| this company.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Oh come on. "No comment" is _always_ what a company says in a
| situation like this, where saying anything else might hurt
| them in a future lawsuit. It doesn 't mean they don't care,
| it means they have lawyers with the bare minimum level of
| competency.
| cube00 wrote:
| I've seen statements that at least pretend like the company
| cares and the steps they are taking to deal with the issue.
|
| Something along the lines of "the safety of our users is
| our highest priority and we are investigating these
| reports", no admissions, no legal risk, but they couldn't
| even do that much.
| ChoHag wrote:
| jakear wrote:
| > "the safety of our users is our highest priority and we
| are investigating these reports", no admissions, no legal
| risk
|
| That statement contains both admissions and legal risk!
| If they aren't actually investigating the reports
| (entirely possible), it's a lie. If they don't actually
| mark "safety" bugs p1 (almost certainly possible), it's a
| lie.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| ...which is why no comment looks so bad, because those
| are easy things that extremely should be happening.
| (Though "highest" priority shouldn't be taken so
| specifically.)
|
| No comment is the worst way to avoid that risk, and
| should be looked down upon.
| soverance wrote:
| They've had this problem for at least a few years, dating all
| the way back to the OG Pixel 1. I filed an FCC complaint about
| it four years ago. Not much has changed.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectFi/comments/9ijq9p/911_probl...
| Animats wrote:
| The regulation problem is that the "Wireless Communications and
| Public Safety Act of 1999", which requires carriers to support
| 911, predates smartphones with non-carrier software. There's
| Kari's Law, [1] which requires multi-line phone systems to
| support direct 911 (not 9-911, or diverting 911 calls to in house
| guards). That applied to the Microsoft Teams problem, where
| Microsoft Teams was capturing 911 calls but not connecting them
| if the user was not logged into Teams.
|
| If the FCC went after Google on this, they could probably win
| claiming clear legislative intent to cover all the cases, and
| that a third party who insinuates themselves into the call chain
| has the same liability as the carrier. File a formal complaint
| with the FCC, and copy your elected representatives.
|
| [1] https://www.911.gov/issues/legislation-and-policy/kari-s-
| law...
| karteum wrote:
| Is it a Google issue or a Qualcomm issue ? (e.g. does it occur
| when using Calyxos/GrapheneOS/LineageOS instead of the raw Google
| Android OS ?)
| hocuspocus wrote:
| The Pixel 6 has a Samsung SoC and 5G modem. If the Exynos based
| Samsung phones were also affected you'd have heard about it a
| lot more and earlier.
| qqqturing2 wrote:
| I had a Samsung 5G Exynos and when one time I couldn't call
| 112 (emergency number in Europe). Tried over and over. Even
| restarted my phone but the phone line was silent when it
| answered.
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's a side effect of that Android version letting apps
| register to take over calling functions (for, e.g., VOIP
| purposes). If any such app on the phone doesn't handle the
| emergency call case correctly, then the attempt fails in one
| way or another.
| leereeves wrote:
| Why does Android allow apps to take over emergency calls?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Because it allows apps to take over calls.
| crooked-v wrote:
| In short, bad overly-generified design that they completely
| tore out in later Android updates, limiting emergency calls
| to OS handling only.
| izacus wrote:
| Pixel 6 and 7 phones don't use Qualcomm hardware anymore - they
| use Samsung modems I think.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| I have a Pixel 6 running GrapheneOS, and the one time I called
| 112 in the Netherlands it worked. Hard to extrapolate from that
| one data point though.
|
| It's a bit of a bother that this is not something you can test
| at any reasonable scale. "Just testing if my call gets through"
| is not something you want to see inundating emergency call
| centres.
| preisschild wrote:
| AFAIK this only occurs when you have Microsoft Teams
| installed.
| Underphil wrote:
| Can't help thinking dialling emergency services should
| trigger a force close of everything non-essential on the
| phone.
| lesquivemeau wrote:
| 112 worked for me in France when i had to call, pixel 6
| running stock firmware... It sure is hard to reproduce
| puyoxyz wrote:
| Again?! This is, like, the third or fourth time I've heard of
| Pixels not being able to call emergency services.
| lsajdn872he wrote:
| Pretty sure it's the same old issue and people just haven't
| updated.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| komali2 wrote:
| I used to be REALLY into modding / jailbreaking / rooting /
| installing custom ROMs on android phones, until I witnessed a car
| accident, tried to call 911 on my iirc galaxy s3, only for it to
| crash. Luckily my friend was able to call, but I tried again a
| couple times later and sure enough, dialing 911 on whatever ROM I
| had simply crashed the phone.
|
| As much as I miss having root on my phone, I'm never taking the
| risk again. Being able to use payment features is a nice extra
| plus I guess.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Frankly, that this situation happened at all is outrageous and
| certifying bodies should take steps to ensure it's no longer
| possible for it to happen.
|
| The solution is to mandate that emergency numbers be hardwired
| into phones and thus their operation could not be overwritten by
| any software whether it be the phone's operating system or any
| user app.
|
| Moreover, it would make sense for all phones, irrespective of
| country of origin, to include emergency numbers from all
| countries, i.e: 911, 112, 000 and any others I'm not aware of.
| Moreover, all emergency numbers should work--that is no matter
| what emergency number is dialed it still should connect to the
| local emergency number.
|
| This is important because tourists/travelers in a different
| country may be unaware of the emergency number for the country
| they are visiting. Whilst roaming, the phone would recognize its
| location by actual location and the carrier its connected to and
| it would dial the correct number even when the user dials his/her
| home emergency number.
|
| This is not just a nice hypothetical, there have been multiple
| instances of US citizens visiting Australia where I am and
| dialing 911 in an emergency and failing to connect with the local
| one. Here, as in Europe, the mobile number is 112 and the
| landline one 000.
|
| Why this wasn't a part of the original ITU 'G' roaming specs is
| anyone's guess but it's an obvious and very dumb omission.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the problem of different numbers.
| Aachen wrote:
| Let's just spell it out instead of this clickbait title:
|
| Dialing the local emergency number (112, 000, and 911 were
| reported, but presumably also others) sometimes doesn't work,
| just gives a click instead of dialing. Google blames third party
| apps. Users report similar issues since Pixel 4 that were
| reported to Google but haven't been resolved since release.
|
| Not like "911 doesn't ring" is much longer of a title than "very
| scary issue with dialing 911". It just sounds ever so slightly
| less like a horror movie.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Nothing about your explanation refutes that this is a very
| scary issue.
|
| Third-party apps or not, a phone that can't call emergency
| services in every situation other than empty battery should be
| treated by the government like food that can potentially poison
| people.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| you posit "911 doesn't ring sometimes" [?] "very scary issue
| with a phone", that's correct
|
| title implies "911 doesn't ring sometimes" [?] "very scary
| issue dialing 911", that is incorrect
|
| frankly "doesn't ring" is probably the most routine issue
| that can happen when dialing a number
|
| the comment you respond to responds to article title and
| posits "911 doesn't ring sometimes" [?] "very scary issue
| dialing 911"
| zinekeller wrote:
| "911 doesn't ring sometimes" in this context means that
| there's good signal _and_ can call non-emergency numbers
| using ordinary phone networks, but for some reason can 't
| handle emergency calls correctly (and yes, you could call
| the GSM-wise non-emergency but legally-wise long emergency
| number for your area normally, it's just you're more likely
| to not know it in an actual emergency). That's not just
| "scary", it's a life-threatening defect similar to a faulty
| airbag (where you don't need it _now_ but it must work in
| an emergency).
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Thanks for reinforcing my point.
|
| Indeed, the phone has a life-threatening defect and I
| would never own one. "Failure to dial 911" is a scary
| defect for a phone.
|
| Where the title makes a logical mistake and is misleading
| in order to be sensational is that, assuming "dialing
| 911" as given context, "phone doesn't ring sometimes" is
| probably the least scary issue possible. In fact, it's
| the most common way dialing a number can go wrong. It's
| easy to imagine countless worse things that will
| radically worsen your outcomes in a life or death
| situation (such as: phone bricking itself, phone
| exploding in your hands, phone becoming subsequently
| unable to make any call, phone making loud noise that
| alerts the attacker that you are making a 911 call, so on
| so forth).
|
| Perhaps for a native speaker it's not as obvious that
| "'very scary' issue dialing 911" here is a semantically
| illogical construct, but I assure you it is. Example of
| one that isn't: "'very scary' issue with a Pixel phone
| involving 911 calls".
| zinekeller wrote:
| First, this article is targeted to the general
| population, not to anal-retentive HN commenters. You're
| nitpicking on technicalities which while tolerated on
| posts by HN users (although heavily discouraged unless
| it's of a technical nature) is definitely out for general
| articles. Even the guidelines are clear about this:
| "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation
| of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to
| criticize. Assume good faith."
|
| Second, the Note 7 exploding is also scary, but to the
| average population (in the US anyway) a phone that bulges
| and physically explodes is as dangerous as not being to
| reliably summon emergency services.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| I merely clarified what the downvoted comment's author
| meant so that those who reflexively started to argue with
| it would see they are actually in agreement on substance
| if they gave it any thought. Talk about generous
| interpretation and anal reflexiveness.
|
| > a phone that bulges and physically explodes is as
| dangerous as not being to reliably summon emergency
| services.
|
| If you are putting forth that a phone exploding when you
| make a 911 call is an issue of the same magnitude as a
| phone occasionally not ringing when you make a 911 call,
| I don't see what else we can discuss...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They said the title was clickbait. You're saying it's
| illogical. The latter is an incorrect claim, and you're
| the one making it.
| Aachen wrote:
| > Nothing about your explanation refutes that this is a very
| scary issue.
|
| That's great, because I didn't want to say that!
|
| The point is that "something very scary happened" is less
| useful than "X happened" when everyone intuitively
| understands that situation X is very scary.
|
| > Third-party apps or not,
|
| Maybe that's another misunderstanding: I think Google's
| excuse is lame. Perhaps you thought I cited it as a
| legitimate reason?
| onion2k wrote:
| _Google blames third party apps._
|
| I'm not going to suggest third parties can't screw with a phone
| and make it effectively unusable, but why isn't emergency
| calling a separate code path in the dialler app and OS that
| just ignores _everything_ that third parties have done? It
| should be impossible to change the behaviour of that small bit
| of the phone. Don 't fire any OS level events, don't call any
| callbacks, ignore any registered intents.
|
| This is on a Pixel. Google can have complete control of the OS
| and dialler if they want to. They should be able to effectively
| isolate this from the rest of the phone. Blaming third parties
| doesn't really explain it.
| fourthark wrote:
| This link posted by crooked-v seems to explain why it was
| like that, and how it has been fixed.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-fixes-
| nightma...
| Sakos wrote:
| > Next bug: when picking a PhoneAccount to run the
| emergency call through, Android goes through a complicated
| sorting process to figure out which account to use. The
| last step in this sort process, the tiebreaker, is sorting
| by hashcode. The hashcode comparison just subtracts one
| hashcode from the other. But just like that stupid Y2K22
| Microsoft Exchange bug from the other day, it's possible
| for this to result in an integer overflow or underflow, and
| now the phone subsystem is going to crash.
|
| This is horrifying and stupid and horrifyingly stupid.
| Aachen wrote:
| I didn't mean for it to sound as though I thought this was a
| legitimate reason absolving Google of blame. I cited it as a
| lame excuse, exactly for the reason you mentioned: this
| should be a core system thing, not influenceable by third
| parties.
| paganel wrote:
| > Dialing the local emergency number (...) sometimes doesn't
| work,
|
| It very well sounds like a horror movie.
| Aachen wrote:
| But "something very scary happened" as a headline is less
| useful than "X happened" when everyone intuitively
| understands that situation X is very scary.
|
| Clickbait is where you have to click through for the
| essential-but-omitted information, written in a way that
| makes you want to know. This is that. It doesn't mean it's
| not also accurate.
| edent wrote:
| When I used to work for a large mobile network, we would spend
| ages testing the firmware of new devices. Even giants (at the
| time) like Nokia would release phones which couldn't dial the
| emergency services, or put out more than the legal limit of
| radiation, or were in other ways defective.
|
| We'd test, send a report back, wait a few weeks, get a new
| firmware, test again, repeat until everything worked. It took
| months. That was fine when phones weren't expected to be updated
| by users.
|
| But when more modern phones arrived with flashable firmware,
| customers couldn't stand the delays associated with testing.
| They'd see a new firmware had been released and complained that
| the mobile network operators were delaying progress, dragging our
| feet, deliberately depriving customers of something cool.
|
| The fact was, operators very often didn't certify the firmware
| because it contained *dangerous* bugs. I'm sure there was also a
| cost element - why pay to re-test a phone that you're no longer
| selling? - but that wasn't the primary driver.
|
| Well, the manufacturers and customers "won". If you buy a phone
| through your network, it probably has a network-certified
| firmware blob. If not, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer.
| izacus wrote:
| Well, the fact that big American mobile operators outright
| blocked or delayed updates for months did not go unnoticed.
|
| Testing is one thing, but in my first hand experience, many
| carriers used this "testing" as a convenient way to block phone
| updates without preloaded bloatware preferring their services
| or apps they were paid to put on the phones.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| bestnameever wrote:
| > many carriers used this "testing" as a convenient way to
| block phone updates without preloaded bloatware preferring
| their services or apps they were paid to put on the phones.
|
| How were you involved with the update process to know this?
| aaomidi wrote:
| We saw the bloat as the end user.
| fossuser wrote:
| Scott Forstall also talks about this:
| https://youtu.be/F3Pl8GmKtW8
|
| Basically part of the reason Apple went with AT&T was
| they were the only carrier willing to let them control
| the user/feature layer of the stack.
|
| The other telecoms would have this giant requirement
| document they dictated to handset manufacturers - which
| is why your crappy Motorola flip phone had three way
| calling buried 7 menus deep that nobody could use.
|
| Things got magnitudes better when Apple leveraged their
| power to take away this control from telecoms. Though
| they still did agree to adhere to the minimum specs wrt
| safety/security.
|
| The crappy Motorola rockr phone that Jobs hated is what
| happened when you tried to work with the telecoms.
| nailer wrote:
| Adding on: phone update 1.1.2 would be released from the
| phone vendor, with fixes for various bits. Carrier 1.1.2
| would be released with undeletable spam apps and
| undeletable spam bookmarks.
|
| We know this because both versions would end on XDA
| Developers.
| sandos wrote:
| It used to be true that even when having an unlocked device
| here in Sweden, the operator actually tested and certified the
| updates, and I know this because updates used to be released at
| wildly different times between different operators. I assume
| this has stopped now that I read this, because I do get
| security updates straight away, and I get the feeling everyone
| does.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| This was one of my first jobs at Blackberry.
|
| It was considered the utmost priority for a call to 911 to be
| clear enough for the other side to hear that you are an
| employee at a testing facility verifying that the device does
| work and the other person can hear you and NOT dispatch
| emergency services....
|
| Cops/EMTs show up, your firmware is junk.
| edvards wrote:
| How often did they show up, and who paid the fine?
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Not often, and we didn't get fined (they were like three
| blocks down the road)
|
| It was really bad around the VolTE roll-out because the
| firmwares were pretty junky at that point (like a 10-1
| failure rate) so we started doing testing calling from a
| phone to another (working) phone before doing the emergency
| services call.
| dcow wrote:
| And I hope we never go back. That phase of mobile phone history
| was unbearable and carriers insufferable. If issues are
| slipping through, it's manufacturers who should be held to
| account for their faulty devices. And if faulty
| firmware/software is a persistent problem, then society should
| step in and regulate.
| 90d wrote:
| Wouldn't that regulation seem exactly like "going back" to
| most people?
| mort96 wrote:
| It's not like months-long delays to get security updates isn't
| also incredibly dangerous.
| sneak wrote:
| Life safety dangerous is different than "malware steals your
| nudes" dangerous.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Malware can do more damage than a broken 911. It depends on
| the circumstances.
|
| It's not "life safety dangerous" to leave the house without
| a phone, and in almost all situations a complete lack of
| phone is more dangerous than a phone with broken 911.
| Bud wrote:
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| Marsymars wrote:
| I appreciate the value of this, but the incentives are too
| biased to function properly. I think a good remedy (which would
| also tackle a number of other conflicts of interests and biased
| incentives) would be for anti-trust prohibitions on mobile
| network operators from selling cell phones at all.
|
| Let the network operators continue to certify phones, like
| hardware manufacturers do with hard drives, memory, etc.,
| dimmer manufacturers do with LEDs, etc.
|
| Make the certification tests, steps and costs transparent to
| both device manufacturers and the public.
| progval wrote:
| > customers couldn't stand the delays associated with testing.
| They'd see a new firmware had been released and complained
|
| Why do customers care about the firmware version?
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Because they want the latest features of the OS on their
| phone
| ilyt wrote:
| Wait, shouldn't be something like FCC certifying emission
| levels not some random mobile network operator ? Or at least
| company run by them as to not have to repeat test same thing
| over and over again ?
| tlb wrote:
| Emission levels are complicated. There isn't a particular
| threshold they have to be under. Rather, phones negotiate
| with the tower to use the minimum power needed to get their
| signal through, depending on their distance from the tower
| and other factors. Using lower power means less interference
| with other phones as well as increased battery life and less
| RF absorption by the user's head. This negotiation has a lot
| of parameters that vary between carriers, so carriers
| legitimately need to test that every model and version of
| phone works reliably on their network and doesn't just start
| blasting at full power sometimes, causing other calls to
| drop.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Also phones (and towers?) in border areas have some logic
| to avoid roaming onto the other country's network.
|
| This leads to lots of misconceptions too.
|
| With a local Rogers SIM from a high building in Toronto, my
| phone will only see Canadian networks on a network scan.
| But when I put in an EU SIM, same phone and same place, a
| network scan will see several US networks and even prefer
| connecting to them (probably cheaper roaming rates), even
| if the connection is ultra-weak.
|
| Feels like there's some geo-fencing preferencing, or maybe
| time-distance bounding going on.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Under 1.2 W/kg in 10g of tissue ICNIRP is the international
| standard.
|
| India has its own in 1g of tissue but I don't know the
| threshold value off the top of my head.
| tlb wrote:
| Modern phones don't even get close to that limit at full
| power. Still, it seems prudent to minimize transmit power
| for safety.
| arbitrage wrote:
| > There isn't a particular threshold they have to be under.
|
| This is a patently false thing to say.
|
| https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phones-and-specific-
| absorpt...
| tlb wrote:
| OK, there's a super-high limit 100x greater than what
| phone hardware is capable of putting out. But that's not
| what carriers are testing -- they want to see that it
| only uses say 0.5 mW, not 1 mW, when close to the base
| station.
| trasz2 wrote:
| thih9 wrote:
| Sounds like you're unhappy that people didn't want the network
| to be responsible for checking against bugs. But would the
| opposite actually be fine? What about people who buy their
| phones from the manufacturers?
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| Such things should be under the prerogative of the national
| telecom regulator body to be checked in the type approval
| procedure. After all, before EU took the care of this, telecom
| equipment in European countries had homologation marks of the
| local FCC equivalents.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| How would you have tested 911 dialling? Did you go all the way
| to a real operator?
| edent wrote:
| Yes. From memory we had a specific SIM which was registered
| with 999. We dialled up, gave a password of the day, and
| asked them what info they could see about the call. They
| could see IMSI, IMEI, Cell Location and other things like
| that.
|
| (A couple of decade ago now - my memory might be inaccurate.)
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Not a lot has changed.
|
| You call the regional center (the 911, or in our case, 112
| responders), you negotiate a timeframe for your tests (so
| that there's enough operators there), you tell them the
| phone number (and other data) that will be used for testing
| (because the responders get the approximate location of the
| caller, and might still send someone to check after a call,
| even if the voice doesn't get through), and then call 911
| (112 here) a bunch of times.
|
| Also, emergency calls have to work even without a sim card
| inserted, or with a simcard but still locked (via sim pin),
| or with an unlocked sim but locked screen, so that had to
| be tested too.
| Pasorrijer wrote:
| This was also a huge issue with BlackBerry 10. We kept
| getting bugs about 999 being dialed because of the way
| the screen recognition was... The phone would wake up in
| your pocket, dial 999 and you'd pocket dial EMS because
| it was allowed to be dialed from above the lock screen no
| matter what.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I've recently accidentally pocket dialled Emergency
| Services with a recent Nokia running latest Android.
|
| Somehow I manage to swipe the screen up and press the
| relatively small 'Emergency' button, all without touching
| the phone. It's really weird.
| macintux wrote:
| I've accidentally dialed 911 via the side buttons on my
| iPhone (I put it into the drink holder in a chair, and it
| was just tight enough to depress the buttons) and at
| least twice via the buttons on my Watch (trying to swap
| out the watch bands). Oh, and once my Watch was wet, and
| it registered my slide motion in the wrong spot.
|
| Admittedly this is roughly once every 2 years, but still
| I'm about at the point where I'd like to disable all
| automatic emergency services.
| kemitche wrote:
| My Pixel 5 had an issue with its power button a few weeks
| back where it would self-press the button. (I believe
| some rain had gotten in somehow and was shorting the
| button).
|
| This resulted in the phone doing various things, such as
| opening the camera (double press of power), trying to
| turn itself off, and, worse: activating the "I'm in
| danger mode" (5 power presses in succession) and counting
| down to calling 911.
|
| I caught it and cancelled before it dialed, then turned
| off the phone. However, as you might guess, the phone
| turned itself back on!
|
| Fortunately I was able to (with much aggravation and
| accidental swaps to the camera app), eventually get to
| settings and disable the feature.
| bombcar wrote:
| You can turn much of them off -
| https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/if-youve-ever-
| called-91...
|
| I had to do this because the kids discovered that if they
| held down power off and then slid the bar over a nice
| woman would talk to them and then a big truck would show
| up!
| macintux wrote:
| Thanks, apparently I did turn them off at some point.
| Doesn't appear to be a way to disable the emergency
| slider on Watch or iPhone though, unfortunately.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| I let the kids play with an old flip phone, figuring they
| couldn't get up to too much trouble since it had no
| service.
|
| Came downstairs to hear them talking about calling 911 -
| when I picked up the phone there were four outgoing
| calls!
|
| Fortunately the big truck did not show up, so I guess the
| operator was able to figure out that there was not
| actually an emergency (or maybe the phone was too old to
| communicate its location).
| d12bb wrote:
| My experience sitting in on 112 dispatchers as part of my
| EMS training was different. Multiple times per shift a
| caller would just start the conversation with something
| like "This is no emergency, I'm an employee of
| Vodafone/T-Mobile/etc and have to test 112". Only network
| operators calling this way though, no phone
| manufacturers.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Normally phone manufacturers certify that this works
| against an operator test suite on simulator hardware, I
| believe.
|
| Cannot have FCC etc. uncertified phone connect to normal
| networks - that would be a mess.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Happens all the time with roaming and imported devices.
|
| I'm not aware of any western provider saying "oh, that
| block of IMEIs aren't allowed to connect to the network".
|
| Canadian government shadow-banned sales of a bunch of
| Xiaomi cell phones, but local providers have no issues
| authing them onto the network. Can't say no to that juicy
| roaming revenue even if it means putting your network at
| risk.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28620359
| toast0 wrote:
| US networks get cagey about certain phones. CDMA carriers
| were always restricive, but now that 2g and 3g are mostly
| shut down, they don't want to allow registration of LTE
| devices that don't do Voice over LTE with their network
| because it breaks the emergency service rules.
|
| I don't think they'd block them from roaming if the
| device has a foreign network sim that's authorized to
| roam though. Of course, major US carriers basically don't
| allow their subscribers to roam to other major carriers.
| toast0 wrote:
| Phone manufacturers probably do use simulators for most
| of their test calls, but also nearly every emergency
| dispatch center will have several cell towers in their
| service area and very few have phone manufacturers or
| phone test facilities.
|
| I have a friend who used to work on cell towers and he'd
| need to do a test call after certain types of
| maintenance, and might visit a few towers a day to do
| that work. On the other hand, a particular phone model
| probably only needs one or two live test calls per
| firmware release, so there's probably a lot fewer of
| those calls overall, even if you're at a dispatch center
| that serves an area including people testing phones.
| abruzzi wrote:
| I don't know if cell carriers support it, but we test our PBX
| with 933. It functions like 911 but doesn't route to
| emergency dispatch, instead it reads back out E911 data. I
| also don't know if, for cell carriers, it functions enough
| like 911 that issues on the phone like reported here would be
| evident.
| myself248 wrote:
| Yes. I used to do this while contracting with Verizon.
|
| When bringing up a new tower, we had a bazillion tests to
| run, and one of the very last was 911. When that day arrived,
| my supervisor would call the non-emergency line at the PSAP
| and check in; sometimes I was in the room for this call.
| Basically we'd make sure they weren't short-staffed, that
| they had capacity for the calls, etc. Just a formality.
|
| When testing actually began, I'd simply tell the operator
| "This is not an emergency, I'm a tech with Verizon making a
| test call, do you have time to take this call?", and if they
| were bouncing off their limit, they'd say no, and I was done
| for the night.
|
| If they said yes, I'd ask them to read back my E911 data. I'd
| transcribe what they said for later comparison against what
| was expected, and ask again if they figured they had time to
| take a few more in the coming minutes. If so, I'd move to the
| next sector on the tower, lather, rinse, repeat.
|
| It was really quite straightforward, and sometimes I'd get
| the same operator over and over, they'd recognize my DN and
| just start rattling off coordinates. At the last call of the
| night we always made sure to thank them, but briefly, and
| that was that. My report would go back to the datafill
| engineer, and that was the last step before unlocking the
| tower for customer traffic.
| [deleted]
| moffkalast wrote:
| The way I see it, this just moves the responsibility for safety
| to the manufacturers instead of the network. It's on the
| specific company then to provide adequate QA for their firmware
| before they release updates, or it reflects badly on them. This
| fiasco for example, tells me to never buy a Google phone since
| they apparently don't test their devices properly.
|
| I'm not sure why it would be on the network to test devices
| anyway, it's not like every net card needs to be approved by
| ICANN or something. There should be standards to adhere to, if
| those are breached on either end, fines should follow.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| This is probably like the fourth or fifth time issues calling
| 911 has come up for Pixel phones too. Google simply isn't
| capable of producing life-critical software.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| That's obviously true, after all Google's principal role in
| life is to make money though advertising not through saving
| lives.
|
| As I've said elsewhere, ultimately it's the responsibly of
| the regulator in each country to ensure that phones can
| connect to emergency numbers irrespective of what operating
| system or apps are installed on them--so that's where the
| problem ought to rest.
|
| That said, it's clear that that view doesn't sit well with
| a number of commentators here, for within seconds of
| posting it together with a solution and the reasons for why
| the comment was voted down sans comment. With attitudes
| like that about one can expect Google to prevaricate.
|
| That leads me to think there's more to this than just a
| clash of software nuking emergency numbers. If I were the
| regulator I'd be asking for the source code from Google on
| threat of future non-approval of Pixel phones to see what
| nefarious antics Google is up to. (It's clear to me that
| it's just too coincidental that blocking 911 would happen
| unless Google is specifically monitoring the number for
| some other unspecified reason.)
| lostlogin wrote:
| > As I've said elsewhere, ultimately it's the responsibly
| of the regulator in each country to ensure that phones
| can connect to emergency numbers irrespective of what
| operating system or apps are installed on them--so that's
| where the problem ought to rest.
|
| If you are selling a phone, you have to comply with phone
| regulations and it's your responsibility to make it do
| phone things.
|
| Blaming the regulator for Google's error is a neat idea
| though.
| [deleted]
| brookst wrote:
| I think you're being unnecessarily hard on Google.
|
| When someone dials 911, there is a ton of context data
| that needs to be collected, analyzed, and added to
| Google's profile of the user to ensure the most relevant
| ads can be served in the future.
|
| There's location data, whether the user is driving,
| connected Bluetooth accessories, other phones in close
| proximity. All of this needs cutting edge ML processing
| so the user model can be updated with e.g. "likely
| domestic violence victim, recommend self defense courses"
| to improve the user experience the next time they search
| for a pie recipe.
|
| Given the heavy lift of this advanced algorithmic
| processing, it's inevitable that some minor bugs will
| creep in to ancillary functions like connecting the
| user's phone call to emergency services. Even when that
| happens, it's still a >95% success for the scenario.
| EwanG wrote:
| I hate that I even have to ask, but I presume you just
| forgot the /s on this...
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| They almost had me, honestly, until the pie recipe bit.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| > Google simply isn't capable of producing life-critical
| software.
|
| I was stuck with a broken-down car at night before and
| needed to see my location on a map. Google had opted me
| into some A/B test on Google Maps that broke the entire app
| and made it unusable, I couldn't find any way to get out of
| this test.
|
| Friends iPhone worked perfectly fine and ended up being
| used instead.
|
| This was probably the biggest factor as to why I dropped
| Android and got an iPhone, you simply can't trust Google's
| software quality.
| edent wrote:
| Most people buy their phone from a network provider /
| carrier. And when someone goes wrong, customers complain to
| the network - not the manufacturer.
|
| That's why networks test firmware. Because they face the
| complaints and chargebacks when the phone breaks.
|
| Mobile networks are, in effect, private networks. Your
| employer may prohibit certain devices from connecting to
| their in-office LAN. Or they may insist on specific devices
| which they know work well with their equipment.
|
| Mobile networks can ban equipment which is stolen. I assume
| they can also de-register an IMEI if the handset if
| interfering with the network. Most countries have a regulator
| who can issue fines for disrupting the airwaves. But they are
| often unable to investigate non-systemic issues.
| nixgeek wrote:
| I'm not sure this isn't a dated take, unfortunately.
| Perhaps this would have been an accurate set of statements
| back in 2012 or so.
|
| 1/ Roaming is a big factor (before COVID, and now in a
| post-COVID world too). I've spent more time on carrier
| networks which are NOT my 'home network' in the past 3-4
| weeks than not, in many different countries, managed by
| many different regulators. I didn't need a new phone for
| each country, a software update for my phone, instead it
| just worked.
|
| 2/ I'm not unique in buying devices from the manufacturer
| directly - specifically, I use the iPhone Upgrade Program.
| Lots of friends buy direct from Apple or via electronics
| stores like Best Buy but every 2-3 years. I hear very few
| people who "got their phone from Verizon" (but I'm sure
| this still happens, too!). [1]
|
| 3/ At least in the Apple ecosystem these days theft and
| loss is handled with Activation Lock, which is IMO more
| effective than IMEI blocking because it works regardless of
| cellular network and without relying on any assumptions
| networks may share a blocklist of reported stolen IMEIs
| amongst themselves.
|
| [1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/10/29/iphone-upgrade-program-
| popula...
| Fnoord wrote:
| > Most people buy their phone from a network provider /
| carrier.
|
| In USA perhaps, the mobile telcos are powerful there, yes.
| Which is why Nokia never got popular there.
|
| Here in EU, its gone down. Especially here in NL.
|
| > And when someone goes wrong, customers complain to the
| network - not the manufacturer.
|
| If they bought it at the mobile telco; _of course_. I mean,
| they bought it from that store, not the manufacturer.
|
| If I buy my smartphone at Amazon, Amazon is inclined to
| give me support. At least, that's how the law works here in
| NL, YMMV.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Perhaps staying inside the network is more common in the
| US, but from a European perspective it's unlikely for a
| device to stay at one provider at all times. Half the time
| you're roaming at another network due to missing towers or
| if you drive 100km and end up in a different country you
| won't see your original provider at all until you return.
|
| As such, all networks must support all devices for the
| system to retain some shred of functionality and
| standardisation is key. Providers can't just pick and
| choose what to support if they want to maintain
| credibility. I would imagine it makes far more sense for
| some international org to do reviews, but at the absence of
| that the manufacturers themselves need to guarantee
| compatibility or they will be pushed out of the market by
| those that do.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I'm fairly certain European networks can deny roaming at
| any time to any specific out-of network phone without
| giving a formal reason.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I would assume that will run afoul of EU regulations
| which forced the providers to enable roaming without
| additional costs. If providers could just deny roaming
| phones they could use that to circumvent the regulations
| (which are unpopular with network operators).
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| Not so in Netherlands. All networks accept out-of-network
| phones. I also never had any problems in Germany,
| Belgium, France or UK.
| pmontra wrote:
| Or you switch to a better plan of another carrier (done,)
| or you own a dual SIM phone with SIMs of two different
| carriers (I do.)
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" The way I see it, this just moves the responsibility for
| safety to the manufacturers instead of the network."_
|
| Perhaps so in the current circumstances, but ultimately it is
| the responsibly of the regulators to ensure the emergency
| numbers work.
|
| As witnessed here, a number of commentators seem to have
| forgotten that their smartphones are first and foremost are
| telephones and not playtoy computers. Unfortunately, the
| computer aspect now seems to dominate--if this weren't a fact
| then these unfortunate incidents wouldn't have happened.
| wpietri wrote:
| > their smartphones are first and foremost are telephones
| and not playtoy computers
|
| I don't think that's true. A few years back when I was
| comparing phones, many reviews don't even mention how good
| they are at making calls. Both Millennials and Gen Z are
| notably phone-averse. [1][2] I think a modern smartphone is
| a portable network computer/camera/sensor-package, with the
| telephone bit being something like the human appendix.
|
| As somebody in Gen X, it looks to me like the whole notion
| of "phone call" is a dying concept that only existed due to
| the technological limitations during the period 1880-2000.
| Think of it sort of like faxing: it made sense at the time.
|
| [1] https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/why-millennials-ignore-
| calls
|
| [2] https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-
| wellness/call-de...
| cesarb wrote:
| > I think a modern smartphone is a portable network
| computer/camera/sensor-package, with the telephone bit
| being something like the human appendix.
|
| A modern smartphone is a convergence of two devices: a
| PDA and a cell phone (this is more obvious with older
| devices like the Palm Treo 650). Once the telephone bit
| is no longer relevant (probably replaced by a data-only
| cellular modem), it will go back to being just a PDA.
| ipdashc wrote:
| > (probably replaced by a data-only cellular modem)
|
| Isn't this kind of already the case? I thought past 4G
| there were no separate channels for call audio, it was
| effectively just VoIP
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| "Making calls" isn't a feature phones compete on - it
| either works or it doesn't, and I hope a review would let
| me know if calling was defective on a phone. Otherwise,
| there's no point in including information on making calls
| - it's a basic feature everybody who buys a phone expects
| to have.
|
| It's a bit like saying "most car reviews don't review
| whether the car stays still when parked in a garage or
| not!"
| wpietri wrote:
| That's just not the case. Phone audio quality varies
| significantly between smartphone models due to variations
| in speaker, mic, and noise reduction. And that's before
| we get to fancier things like Wi-Fi Calling and HD Voice.
| The whole reason I was looking for that in reviews is
| that people had a hard time hearing me when I called from
| my previous cellphone, and I also noticed that some
| people I was talking to had much clearer voice calls than
| others.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| If you had difficulty being heard on a phone, then your
| phone has failed at being a phone.
|
| Also, splitting hairs over phone audio quality is beside
| the point. The point of a phone is to be a phone, smart
| or not. I would be livid if my fridge could play games
| but not provide cooling. A smart fridge doesn't negate
| the primary function.
| wpietri wrote:
| If audio quality is beside the point, then it sounds like
| you agree with me that the primary point of a smartphone
| is no longer that of being a phone.
|
| I also think your "smart fridge" analogy is hilariously
| off target. Survey data indicates that the actual phone
| calls are a relatively small fraction of smartphone use:
| https://www.reviews.org/mobile/cell-phone-addiction/
|
| I agree that the primary purpose of a cellphone was once
| making calls. I'm just saying that day is long past. That
| transition started as texting became popular, but
| smartphones drastically accelerated it.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > a number of commentators seem to have forgotten that
| their smartphones are first and foremost are telephones and
| not playtoy computers.
|
| Speaking for myself at least, I can tell you that it's not
| so much that I _forgot_ as that I don 't care and also
| you're wrong. Yes, it's good - perhaps even important -
| that the computer I carry in my pocket every day can also
| theoretically make phone calls, but it is most certainly
| first and foremost a computer.
| bagelfish wrote:
| Nope. It's called a smartphone, that should be your first
| clue that it's actually a phone. Also, not a very good
| computer.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| It's "smart" before "phone".
| surfpel wrote:
| This is such an uncontroversial take, I'm really surprised
| to see it get so downvoted on HN. I upgraded my phone the
| day after it froze when I tried to make a call. I never
| want to be in a situation where I can't make an emergency
| call. That's sortof the whole point of a "TELEPHONE"??
| lazide wrote:
| A lot of people never use the phone part of their
| smartphones, and just block/silence the phone part anymore.
|
| Well, until there is an emergency anyway. But folks not
| knowing how to deal with emergencies is not that uncommon
| anyway, unfortunately.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Is there any theory or explanation why this happens? "Third party
| apps" is totally vague, what third party app could stop you from
| dialing an emergency number? And even if such apps exist (or even
| are common) is it not a huge design flaw by itself, which the
| manufacturer has to remedy?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Not sure why they don't say it by name but the bug was
| originally found with MS Teams.
|
| "The issue is the result of an "unintended interaction" between
| Teams and Android, specifically when the users have the app
| installed but are not logged in to any account." [0]
|
| [0] https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-microsoft-
| team...
| constantcrying wrote:
| Thanks! Still very weird to be honest.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Wouldn't this be an easy fix? Just have any emergency number
| dialed automatically kill all 3rd party apps before sending
| the call.
| Sakos wrote:
| Or just always hardcode the use of the built-in phone app
| for emergency numbers. That shouldn't be something that a
| third-party app can register for.
| constantcrying wrote:
| That should really not be neccessary and potentially a user
| might want to use third party applications during an
| emergency call. (Imagine having saved the medication a
| relative receives on your device)
|
| The OS has near complete authority over the device. If a
| user dials an emergency number _android_ has to choose to
| give it to a third party app and that should never happen.
|
| (I am also not sure that it would be a fix at all. From the
| description above it seems like android would try to start
| Teams, even if it was closed.)
| lultimouomo wrote:
| So users who join Teams calls but refuse to login cannot call
| 911, and die. Seems in line with the general Teams ethos to
| be honest.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Teams is the app whose main proposition is "it's free with
| our O365 subscription". Feature-wise it's a pain in the ass
| every day.
| macintux wrote:
| For the past several weeks it has frequently been failing
| to register mouse clicks.
|
| Thank goodness our team mostly uses Slack instead. What a
| shitshow.
| n0tth3dro1ds wrote:
| Unless Teams is abusing private APIs or acting in other
| nefarious ways, this is 1000% a problem with Android
| itself. It shouldn't be possible to break emergency service
| call operation through normal usage (or even naive usage)
| of the public APIs on the system. To blame Teams here is
| completely backwards.
| repler wrote:
| Most underrated comment on the thread.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I believe this is the result of two problems. One is the
| fact Teams registers phone service providers over and
| over again, the other is that Android didn't pick the
| right phone account for a while.
|
| The Teams issue will cause generic connectivity issues
| because Teams says "I can call this number!" but then
| can't; the Android issue is an emergency issue because
| the Teams app shouldn't indicate the ability to call
| emergency services but Android tries to use Teams
| regardless. Even if Google fixes the 911 bug, users may
| still be unable to call if Microsoft hadn't fixed the
| registration issue.
|
| Both problems should be fixed by now, but it's possible
| Google and Microsoft haven't updated every single device
| out there. It's also possible a different bug has shown
| up.
| rkangel wrote:
| I understand this, but there is still an architecture
| issue here:
|
| _It should not be possible for installed applications
| (even malicious ones) to prevent calling the emergency
| services using the cellular network_
|
| In the worst case it might try some other options first,
| but whatever is registered or set up the phone should use
| the SIM information to call on the network. The network
| operators have a load of regulation to meet (and special
| prioritisation of emergency call channels etc.) so why do
| the phone makers not?
|
| Teams is _a_ cause of this problem, but we 're talking
| about it because it's a widely installed app. What other
| niche VoIP or similar applications are also causing this
| problem? The whole value we are sold of the restrictive
| "app" model is it is meant to protect the phone user from
| things the app might do.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I think we all agree it shouldn't. If I remember
| correctly, the code had special cases for emergency
| services just so this wouldn't happen.
|
| That said, if I install a carrier's app on my tablet that
| enables calling and adds the necessary emergency services
| support, I don't see why it couldn't be used as the
| fallback for emergency services. Sometimes I have WiFi
| but no mobile signal (VoWiFi is finicky as hell) so if I
| need to reach emergency services, an "internal dialer
| only" approach would actually prevent me from getting
| help more than it solves the problem.
|
| The code was buggy and not tested enough. Teams didn't
| specify that it could handle emergency calls. The method
| that sorts the apps that are capable of dealing with
| emergency phone numbers simply forgot to verify that the
| numbers in the list were all emergency capable:
| https://medium.com/@mmrahman123/how-a-bug-in-android-and-
| mic...
|
| If I install a dialer, I expect it to be able to dial
| 112/999/911. I don't expect it to try to re/activate the
| vendor dialer I disabled, switch my system settings to
| give it its call permissions back, and call the number.
| Hell, with multiple dialers, this behaviour may even
| cause a loop by itself.
|
| Bugs in the core framework can't be fixed by hardcoding
| specific dialers, you'll only hardcode the buggy, often
| barely updated dialers. Even after my phone goes EOL, I
| can fix problems like these by simply installing a
| better, fixed dialer, and that's a pretty good feature in
| my opinion.
| willbudd wrote:
| Allowing one app to register more than one phone service
| provider smells like an Android API bug. Allowing an
| unlimited number definitely is a bug. Allowing the
| corresponding integer to overflow and... well... do we
| really need to argue this point?
|
| A phone OS should never have to rely on good app behavior
| to not collapse like a house of cards. Much less one made
| by a corporation with a 71% worldwide market share.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The OS was bugged. The method that fetches the phone
| service providers for emergency services returned a
| sorted list of all service providers. Had the necessary
| filters been in place, the index issue wouldn't even have
| become a problem.
|
| The integer overflow issue was part of a very flawed last
| resort branch of a piece of sorting code. It did
| underflow, but the underflow happened in a piece of code
| that basically sorted two objects by their memory
| addresses at that point. There was no way to recover from
| that, the problem should've been caught way before
| instead.
|
| It's awful that code this important is this buggy, but no
| code is entirely bug free and hard coding behaviour would
| only hard code the bug further. This is a problem that
| can only be solved with higher standards, better testing,
| and better code analysis tools.
| tormeh wrote:
| Of course this is an Android issue, but it's also
| extremely typical of Teams to be an ill-behaved app.
| lultimouomo wrote:
| Of course it is an Android problem. But as someone who is
| forced to use Teams, it is hard not to see irony in the
| situation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-25 23:01 UTC)