Comment by bri3d
5 hours ago
Yeah, I couldn't find any sources that weren't rage-bait either.
Honestly, to me the feature seems so incredibly low-functionality that I'm surprised they're pushing it forward after all of the controversy it's generated. Like, sure, it might be nice to see if someone was out to lunch or in Building 17 or whatever without needing to message them, but at the cost of the whole "teams is spying on you" narrative and yuck-factor it pushes, I'm surprised they haven't pushed harder on either clarifying the functionality or just pulling it.
I think I agree. Of all things MS does, this is relatively small potatoes. It a soft creep, but also a gentle reminder that I need to somehow get out of my position, do wfh where I control my environment better ( likely my own business ), or try to convince bosses that we should move away from Windows ( as impossible as sell now as it ever was ).
Hell, if you're using Teams PSTN calling, your location has to be pulled in by Teams for e911 compliance anyways down to the building. It updates automatically already, even!
Sure, and your corporate IT also have the roaming logs from their APs and the access logs from the VPN (and maybe your location from MDM anyway), but it doesn't get shown to your boss and coworkers in real time, probably, unless your company is structured really weirdly.
What happens if you deny location permissions? Why doesn't every other VOIP app require your live location, and instead are fine with a random address you manually entered?
I used to work in healthcare network/telecom and then as a healthcare network/telecom VAR before working at a networking manufacturer currently for the last ~year. The below may be slightly out of date, and I was just the person getting told by the lawyers instead of the one with the real understanding, but it was what I'd run into at the time for the US.
The understanding I always got from legal was "it's continually the company's legal liability under the RAY BAUM's Act whether the address is correct when the user dials 911 on/via the corporate systems, not the user's". Sometimes the conversation sounded like you could potentially have users sign something to transfer that liability, other times legal didn't seem to even want to entertain the idea as valid. Regardless, none of the companies ever ended up wanting to go that route for either concern of general friction/overhead or concern there would be employees pushing back that they don't want to sign it and instead would just want 911 to work (which is also a reasonable position for an employee to want to hold). I.e. implementing automatic VOIP location for some users but not others was either impossible on some systems or just seen as a nightmare to try to track/audit, even if they were willing to try to make every employee perfectly happy about it. A bit of a legally induced quagmire for a good intent (accurate 911 not being something a place could opt out of providing) which had trade offs in reality.
RAY BAUM's compliance requirements for for nomadic endpoints in went active in 2022 but most companies had already started trying to be compliant a little prior to that when fixed endpoints needed it anyways. Some companies of course don't bother, either knowingly or unknowingly assuming that compliance risk. Before that it wasn't really a topic.