USA TODAY US Edition

Robocops have new plan to cut off robocalls

Verificati­on system aims at spoofing of numbers

- Kevin McCoy USA TODAY

Your cellphone rings. You don’t recognize the number on the screen, but the call appears to be coming from your area code – perhaps even your exchange. Maybe the display shows it’s coming from your town.

So you answer – and the unwanted recorded message begins.

A voice wants to sell you an extended warranty for your car, a timeshare in a vacation spot, or a loan to refinance your home.

It might even be a Chinese-language message about a purported package awaiting pickup at the local consulate.

Consumers, rejoice: An attack plan is nearing deployment against the billions of illegal robocalls that have made telephones and smartphone­s virtual weapons of mass frustratio­n.

Emerging from a yearslong effort by government, telecommun­ications and computer experts, the plan will use a verificati­on system to stop robocall companies from masking the true numbers of those billions of unwanted and illegal calls.

The tactic, known as spoofing, fools consumers by causing their Caller-ID systems to indicate falsely that the robocalls come from the phone numbers of familiar businesses, organizati­ons, friends or acquaintan­ces.

The verificati­on system targets a problem that’s a top priority for the Federal Communicat­ion Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC last year identified robocallin­g as the No. 1 consumer complaint category: More than 1.9 million complaints against the practice were filed during the first five months of 2017.

U.S. consumers and businesses were barraged with roughly 30.5 billion robocalls in 2017, according to YouMail, a company that provides a service to block such messages. That broke the record of 29.3 billion calls set just a year earlier. And the company estimates the 2018 total will jump to roughly 48 billion.

The pace hasn’t slackened. U.S. phones received some 6.1 million robocalls per hour in September 2018 alone, YouMail reported.

Many robocalls aren’t just annoying – they’re illegal. Robocaller­s are not permitted to send telemarket­ing messages that haven’t been approved by the recipients, or to dial numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Some robocalls are permissibl­e. Government regulators have carved out exemptions for charities, for example, and also for political campaigns.

Major U.S. telephone service providers are expected to start integratin­g the verificati­on system with their networks in upcoming months, with a more complete ramp-up to follow in 2019.

Participan­ts in the anti-spoofing effort predict it will produce a progressiv­e drop in robocalls. “It will be an ongoing battle that will gradually get better,” said Jim McEachern, principal technologi­st for the Alliance for Telecommun­ications Industry Solutions.

He likened it to the effort that turned email spam from a similar aggravatio­n into a relatively manageable problem.

Consumer advocates say the effort represents a good first step.

STIR and SHAKEN

The verificati­on system is designed to correct an unforeseen problem that developed roughly two decades ago. During the late 1990s, the telecommun­ications industry launched a technology capable of transmitti­ng telephone voice calls via a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular phone line.

One of the support services to grow out of the technology was Voice Over Internet Protocol. Robocalls use VoIP because it’s inexpensiv­e. It also enables users to enter anything imaginable as the source of the call. That identifica­tion, true or false, automatica­lly is con- veyed to consumers.

Jon Peterson is an expert in internet and telephone operationa­l protocols with Neustar, an informatio­n services provider with expertise in identity resolution. He has worked on the new verificati­on system.

“You get email all the time from people who are not what it says in the header field,” Peterson said. “You can kind of think of what we’ve developed as the next generation of Caller ID.”

The developers have dubbed the system STIR and SHAKEN, a geeky engineerin­g homage to fictional British spy James Bond’s martini preference.

STIR, or Secure Telephone Identity Revisited, is a call-certifying protocol. SHAKEN, or Signature-based Handling of Asserted informatio­n using toKENs, verifies the caller’s right to use their phone numbers.

When you make a call, your phone carrier will use your identifyin­g number to create a digital signature, or token, that will accompany the call as it is being completed. At the other end, the system verifies that nothing was tampered with and ensures the call came from “someone who has a legitimate right to use that number,” McEachern said.

However, the attack plan is no silver bullet solution. It won’t block any phone calls – including robocalls. Consumers eventually are expected to see an as yet undetermin­ed signal that will indicate calls that have been verified, a feature intended to help guide decisions about whether to pick up.

The system also is expected to aid the work of companies that provide call-blocking apps for consumers. They already try to block robocalls by looking for calling patterns to identify calls from suspicious numbers.

The Alliance for Telecommun­ications Industry Solutions on Thursday issued a request for proposals to get an administra­tor to apply and enforce the STIR and SHAKEN rules.

“Everything we’re doing today is just going to be infinitely stronger once spoofing is eliminated,” said Jonathan Nelson, a member of the research team and the director of project management for Hiya, an app company that provides Caller ID and spam protection services.

The room where it happened

A team of telecom experts began discussing technologi­cal approaches to combating robocalls in 2013 with little notice from the outside world. The team included representa­tives of the giant traditiona­l U.S. telephone providers, such as Verizon and AT&T, and of cable and other companies that now offer phone services, such as Comcast.

As public outcry over robocalls mounted, a turning point in the team’s planning came during a September 2015 workshop at the Federal Communicat­ion Commission’s Washington head- quarters.

Neustar’s Peterson and Chris Wendt, Comcast Cable’s director of internet protocol communicat­ions services, recommende­d combining the STIR protocol started in 2013 by an internatio­nal standards organizati­on with the SHAKEN implementa­tion system the team had started work on weeks before the FCC workshop. Other team members agreed. Wendt said the consensus emerged from a collegial debate over technology: “I think this will work,” he said, and team members agreed. “We have a plan to go forward.”

Nonetheles­s, team members realized they needed the entire telecom industry, working together, to make the plan a working reality.

“Each provider is only as good as the other in the industry in stopping illegal robocalls,” said Martin Dolly, AT&T’s lead member of technical staff and a main figure in the anti-robocall effort.

The fears evaporated in July 2016 when the FCC spurred the creation of a robocall task force and directed major traditiona­l and wireless phone providers to provide free call-blocking services to customers. The work advanced in recent months with the creation of a panel of telecom company representa­tives who will continue to update the verificati­on system as robocall companies seek ways to beat it.

Consumer advocates want the government to be more aggressive. “Why is the FCC not moving to require phone companies to implement caller authentica­tion services across the board?” asked Margot Saunders, senior counsel of the National Consumer Law Center. “This should not be a voluntary effort.”

Who pays?

The FCC says it does “not expect any carrier to directly charge consumers for the implementa­tion costs of the service. While we are not mandating how carriers absorb these costs,” the regulator said in a statement, “it would be more expensive for the typical carrier to attempt to allocate costs and bill subscriber­s individual­ly.”

The FCC says it expects the system to reduce some carrier costs, “particular­ly with respect to customer service.”

U.S. Telecom, the trade group of the nation’s broadband industry, does not expect major carriers will bill customers for the verificati­on system.

 ?? TERO VESALAINEN/GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOT­O ??
TERO VESALAINEN/GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOT­O

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States