Scam activity and impact - Home page | ACMA



Combating scams A discussion paper on technological solutionsmarch 2019CanberraRed Building Benjamin OfficesChan Street Belconnen ACTPO Box 78Belconnen ACT 2616T+61 2 6219 5555F+61 2 6219 5353MelbourneLevel 32 Melbourne Central Tower360 Elizabeth Street Melbourne VICPO Box 13112Law Courts Melbourne VIC 8010T+61 3 9963 6800F+61 3 9963 6899SydneyLevel 5 The Bay Centre65 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSWPO Box Q500Queen Victoria Building NSW 1230T+61 2 9334 7700 or 1800 226 667F+61 2 9334 7799Copyright notice the exception of coats of arms, logos, emblems, images, other third-party material or devices protected by a trademark, this content is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. We request attribution as ? Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Communications and Media Authority) 2019.All other rights are reserved.The Australian Communications and Media Authority has undertaken reasonable enquiries to identify material owned by third parties and secure permission for its reproduction. Permission may need to be obtained from third parties to re-use their material. Written enquiries may be sent to:Manager, Editorial ServicesPO Box 13112Law CourtsMelbourne VIC 8010Email: info@.au TOC \o "1-3" \t "ACMA_ExecSummaryHeading,1" Executive summary PAGEREF _Toc4744344 \h 1Scam activity and impact PAGEREF _Toc4744345 \h 1International context PAGEREF _Toc4744346 \h 2Australian context PAGEREF _Toc4744347 \h 2Scope PAGEREF _Toc4744348 \h 3Approach PAGEREF _Toc4744349 \h 3Discussion paper PAGEREF _Toc4744350 \h 3Communications environment PAGEREF _Toc4744351 \h 4Regulatory environment PAGEREF _Toc4744352 \h 4Disruption PAGEREF _Toc4744353 \h 5Scam activity PAGEREF _Toc4744354 \h 8Impact of scam activity PAGEREF _Toc4744355 \h 8Common scam techniques used PAGEREF _Toc4744356 \h 10CLI over-stamping PAGEREF _Toc4744357 \h 10Phishing PAGEREF _Toc4744358 \h 10‘Wangiri’ type scams PAGEREF _Toc4744359 \h 10Fake offers PAGEREF _Toc4744360 \h 11Threats, extortion and offers of assistance PAGEREF _Toc4744361 \h 11Scam telephone calls and SMS messages PAGEREF _Toc4744362 \h 11Network and service attributes PAGEREF _Toc4744363 \h 12Scam emails and OTT messages PAGEREF _Toc4744364 \h 13International initiatives PAGEREF _Toc4744365 \h 16Industry-led collaborations PAGEREF _Toc4744366 \h 16Identification of scam communications PAGEREF _Toc4744367 \h 17Warning and blocking of scam communications PAGEREF _Toc4744368 \h 18Invitation to comment PAGEREF _Toc4744369 \h 21Making a submission PAGEREF _Toc4744370 \h 21Appendix?A—Terms of Reference for the Scam Technology Project PAGEREF _Toc4744371 \h 22Terms of Reference PAGEREF _Toc4744372 \h 23Reference group PAGEREF _Toc4744373 \h 23Matters to which the ACMA will have regard PAGEREF _Toc4744374 \h 23Out of scope PAGEREF _Toc4744375 \h 24Reporting and timing PAGEREF _Toc4744376 \h 24Appendix?B—Glossary PAGEREF _Toc4744377 \h 25Appendix?C—List of questions PAGEREF _Toc4744378 \h 29Executive summary The ACMA is undertaking a comprehensive Scam Technology Project (the project) to examine technological solutions to disrupt and reduce the level and severity of scam activity on Australian consumers. The Terms of Reference for the project are at Appendix A.A glossary of terms used in this paper is at Appendix B.This summary provides an overview of the key considerations and the ACMA’s approach.Scam activity and impactScam activity on telecommunications networks has a significant social and economic impact on Australians. There is evidence that the scale and impact of activity is increasing. Scams are the largest category of complaint to the ACMA across its broad remit.The serious harms involved include financial loss, emotional distress and an erosion of confidence in telecommunications networks and legitimate marketing practices. In 2018, the Scamwatch website managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) reported more than $100 million dollars in losses from scams, with more than $55 million lost through scams perpetrated via phone and email.Recent media reports suggest that Australia is being targeted by scam activity on what is essentially an ‘industrial scale’.Scammers exploit the cost, connectivity and ubiquity of modern communications services to connect with potential victims. Data indicates telephone calls are the main channel used, and this is where the highest social and economic impacts are reported. Scam activity is also prolific via SMS messages and emails, with similar significant harms. There is also increasing connectivity across channels and platforms, creating more opportunity for scammers to make contact. Scammers use a range of deception techniques to gain access to, and the trust of, Australians. Techniques include falsifying information, imitating trusted brands and using personal information obtained online or via theft. Scammers may also use threats and extortion. Scam activity is increasingly technologically sophisticated and hard to detect. It usually originates from offshore locations and scammers readily adapt to disruption measures and ruthlessly exploit new opportunities and vulnerabilities.International contextScam activity is a global problem that presents complex technological and jurisdictional challenges for government (law enforcement, regulators and policy departments), industry (network operators and service providers) and consumers. A range of international initiatives are being developed and/or deployed, including: industry-led initiatives such as the New Zealand (NZ) Telecommunications Forum voluntary code to facilitate call blockingco-regulatory approaches being taken in the United States and Canada, where regulators have strongly encouraged industry to develop solutions to prevent scam calls and fraudulent use of numbersdirect regulatory initiatives implemented in:the United Kingdom, where network operators are required to act in relation to fraudulent use of over-stamping (spoofing) the US and Canada, where network operators are required to block certain calls likely to be linked to scams.Consumers acting to protect themselves via proactive use of smartphones and applications based on crowd-sourced or other information to block or filter scam communications.Most of these initiatives are relatively new, and, as such, the level of their effectiveness and/or applicability to the Australian market remain open questions.Australian contextSeveral government agencies have roles in disrupting scam activity. The ACMA has a key role as the communications industry and unsolicited communications regulator. Other agencies with roles include the ACCC as the competition regulator, the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) as the Australian Government lead on national cyber security issues, and the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement agencies in relation to perpetrated scams. Agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Human Services, as key brands used by scammers, provide important educational material and alerts to raise consumer awareness. Additionally, many commercial entities, such as banks and larger companies with well-known brands such as NBN Co, also have active consumer-facing initiatives to warn and disrupt scam activity concerning their goods and services. The communications industry (network operators and providers of communications services) plays a frontline role in current disruption approaches. It undertakes a range of initiatives such as blocking calls and emails where scam activity can be verified.Despite these initiatives, evidence indicates more needs to be done. The ACMA’s 2018 consumer research indicates Australian adults think industry needs to do more, and that there is a clear role for government to play in addressing the issue. ACMA consumer research also confirms that the majority of Australian adults use screening behaviours (including not answering calls) to manage unsolicited calls on their home and mobile phones. While consumers may feel they are adept at detecting and dealing with scam calls themselves, they have real concern about family and friends in vulnerable circumstances, including older Australians.The problem is widespread, complex and involves malicious, often offshore, actors. In this context, there is unlikely to be a ‘silver bullet’ solution to scam activity. Practical technological solutions deployed by industry, a regulatory framework that supports effective action, and informed and proactive consumers are all likely to be necessary to reduce the harm to Australians. ScopeScam activity may involve a range of contact channels; accordingly the project will consider phone calls, SMS, over-the-top (OTT) messages and email communications. Other types of scam activity, such as in-person, mail and scams perpetrated over the internet that do not start with an unsolicited communication is outside the scope of the project. Mobile number fraud (fraudulent porting or transfer of a mobile number) is also outside of the scope of this project. The issue is the subject of current separate ACMA and industry consideration.ApproachThe project consists of three phases:Information gathering—including targeted consultations with key industry, government and consumer stakeholders and international regulators.Consultation—submissions to this discussion paper will be supplemented by ongoing engagement with key stakeholders, including an industry roundtable after the submissions to this paper have been received. Reporting—a final report that canvasses solutions and related issues will be completed in December 2019. Public release of the report, or extracts of the report, will depend upon the commercial and security sensitivities of the findings.Discussion paperThis discussion paper solicits views, expertise and evidence on a range of matters, including:current and emerging technologies and approaches to disrupt scams in Australia the applicability of international initiatives to the Australian contextwhether Australian initiatives at a network or provider level can be elevated to ensure industry-wide coverage (and if so, by what mechanism)whether industry and government can better share information, either through informal and/or formal mechanisms, to aid identification and disruptionany impediments to implementing effective current or future initiatives, including technological barriers, costs/benefit analysis and any regulatory blocks or gaps.The ACMA has no pre-determined position on any of the matters discussed in the paper. We welcome information that will provide context, including about the extent to which international initiatives may be effective in Australia and/or how any such initiatives may be realised.Submissions will directly inform the final report and are invited by 10 May 2019. A consolidated list of the questions contained throughout the paper is at Appendix munications environment The highly dynamic communications sector continues to be transformed by new and emerging digital technologies, offering new opportunities and redefining how Australians connect, and access and consume content and services. The current environment is characterised by:the impending completion of the National Broadband Network (NBN)the arrival of the 5G network and the anticipated momentum it provides to the Internet of Things (IoT)heightened global concerns and corresponding demand for stronger safeguards by online service providers, including Facebook, Google and Twittergreater uncertainty for consumers navigating the speed of technological change and the impact it has on their lives.We are increasingly interconnected with technological and product innovations driving new services and new ways of connecting. There is continued growth in the demand for data and the prospect of greater convergence between fixed and mobile networks.The rapid global proliferation of networked telecommunications services, universal take-up of Internet Protocol (IP) and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communications technologies has made any-to-any connectivity easier and cheaper than ever. However, global and domestic experience indicates that scammers are ruthlessly adept at exploiting technological developments, including automated calling technology (‘robocalls’) and the ability to over-stamp (‘spoof’) calling line identification (CLI).The integrity of Australian telecommunications networks and services will underpin economic growth and a networked society in the coming years. Ensuring there is public confidence in it is, therefore, a priority if the economic and social benefits are to be maximised for Australians.In this context, scam activity over telecommunications networks not only frustrates and harms individuals but undermines the integrity of the networks and services themselves by eroding public confidence. Addressing scam activity involves navigating a complex web of industry and regulatory responsibility. For example, a single scam operation may involve activity in multiple countries (all with different laws) and unsolicited contact over multiple communications channels where the traffic passes through many networks in dozens of countries. In addition, at any point in transit, deliberate obfuscation techniques may be applied to hide the source of the communications and identity of the caller from the recipient, industry and regulators.Regulatory environmentThe ACMA is a statutory authority within the federal government portfolio of Communications and the Arts. The ACMA is Australia's regulator for broadcasting, the internet, radiocommunications, telecommunications and unsolicited communications (telemarketing and unsolicited commercial marketing emails and SMS messages). The ACCC is an independent Commonwealth statutory authority whose role is to enforce the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as well as a range of additional legislation promoting competition, fair trading and regulating national infrastructure for the benefit of all Australians. ?It monitors and enforces compliance with a range of telecommunications-specific legislation as well as the general consumer protection and anti-competitive conduct provisions in the Act, including access to telecommunications networks under Part XIC of the Act. The ACCC also manages the Scamwatch website which gives information to the public to help then recognise and avoid common scams and provides an online service for reporting scams. The ACSC is the Australian Government’s lead on national cyber security issues. It brings together cyber security capabilities from across the Australian Government to improve the cyber resilience of the Australian community and support the economic and social prosperity of Australia in the digital age.Where perpetrators of scam activity can be identified as operating from within Australia, regulators and law enforcement agencies can take effective action through available remedies. Scam activity can be captured under a range of regulatory regimes, including the false and misleading conduct provisions in Australian consumer law, the unsolicited communications laws, relevant provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and Part 13 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.However, the (generally) international nature of the activity and technologically complex communications environment pose challenges for providers to identify and act on scam activity, and for regulators and law enforcement agencies to identify and act against offenders.The ACMA and ACCC have respectively made calls for action on scams in relation to recently published reports. The Minister for Communications and the Arts has also requested that the ACMA and the ACCC look at realistic solutions to address international scam calls.The ACMA anticipates that the project will serve to promote and facilitate collaboration and identification of solutions.The project recognises industry is well placed to identify and implement solutions to address scam activity. As the peak telecommunications industry body, Communications Alliance Ltd (Communications Alliance) has led the development of industry-wide solutions. Specifically, the industry code, Handling of Life Threatening and Unwelcome Communications, sets out processes for the sharing of information to minimise the intrusion and impact of repeated unwelcome communications. Additionally, Communications Alliance’s Communications Security Reference Panel coordinates telecommunications industry-wide security initiatives related to fraud prevention and cyber security. DisruptionScam activity presents a global challenge to industry and government, and to date, while there is collaboration, there is no unified international approach, given the different contexts in each country. The ACMA is an active member of the Unsolicited Communications Enforcement Network (UCENet) that has a strategic mission to support collaboration, innovation and enforcement outcomes worldwide. Members within the network, including regulators from the UK, US, Canada and NZ, are each tackling the challenge of disrupting scam activity.Initiatives that are either being deployed or actively explored include development by the US telecommunications industry of a system to authenticate calls as originating from a genuine caller. While promising, the potential for application in an Australian context where telecommunications networks use both IP-based (internet protocol) and legacy technologies needs exploration.In the UK, laws to support network operators identifying and blocking calls originating from invalid or non-dialable numbers appear attractive in an Australian context as part of a potential suite of measures to address scam activity. In Australia, the ACMA is aware that some service providers undertake a range of measures to identify and block scam activity on their networks and services. This may include collaboration with other service providers so that they can also act. However, the extent of these initiatives is not clear, nor is it clear if these measures are being applied consistently by industry and whether a unified approach would be more effective.While providers may proactively monitor their services and networks to block scam activity once it is identified and verified, the ACMA understands that reliable verification of such traffic can be challenging. Legitimate communications may appear very similar to scam traffic, and vice versa. In this context, it is also unclear what, if any, steps are being taken to identify the characteristics of, and report suspect or verified illegitimate traffic, across networks or between government and industry.Some consumers are also acting to protect themselves from scams. A number of smartphone applications are available that will identify and warn or block communications that appear to be scam communications. The most popular of these applications have been downloaded millions of times. These applications are often based on user feedback about certain communications, and, as such, may carry a risk that legitimate communications are also being flagged as scam communications. There is little objective data available about the effectiveness of such applications, what data they rely on, and how compliant they may be with legislation, such as privacy laws. Given the number in the marketplace, there is a risk that users may have a false sense of security about a call/message because it is not flagged as scam activity by an application. Launched in February 2018 by the Australian Payments Network, the New Payments Platform (NPP) is a system that enables customers of different banks to make and receive real-time payments, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Real-time transfers have obvious benefits for consumers but these also may help facilitate scams and fraud as it may be more difficult for financial institutions to stop transfers suspected of being fraudulent in real time. -438155524500While the banking industry is working to minimise bank fraud, it is unclear now the extent to which, if any, new payment systems may also contribute to scam harms given their potential integration with communications services.Question 1: What current methods and tools do consumers use to block or manage scam communications? Are they effective? Why/why not?Question 2: If you are a network operator or service provider, what current tools and services do you provide your customers to assist them to manage scam communications?Question 3: What current tools and methods are used and/or available for network operators and service providers to identify and block scam communications? Are they effective? Why/why not?Question 4:What challenges or impediments exist that limit the ability of network operators and service providers to identify and block scam communications?Question 5: What are the opportunities and challenges for greater collaboration among network operators (including international operators) and service providers to disrupt scam communications?Question 6: What current information sharing can be leveraged to disrupt scam communications holistically over Australian telecommunication networks, including between industry and/or with government?Question 7: Are there any regulatory, commercial or other barriers for network operators and service providers to act on disrupting scam communications?Question 8: What, if any, regulatory settings may assist to prevent or disrupt scam communications?Question 9:Do established commercial practices and/or use of technology (such as traffic-swapping, least-cost routing) facilitate scam activity? Are there opportunities to disrupt scam activity in relation to these practices or technology?Scam activityScam activity occurs where a criminal attempts to fraudulently or dishonestly obtain a benefit from someone.Scam activity can be widespread, scattershot or specifically targeted. It can involve automated and/or technological aspects. It often targets consumers where the scammer has already obtained some information about that consumer to build trust. This could be information obtained through identity theft or from publicly visible information on social media services. Compliance data and reports suggest that once a consumer appears to be susceptible or receptive to scam communications, their information may be sold or shared between scammers, increasing the potential for repeat approaches. Criminals have created wholesale markets to trade in stolen identity data from across the world.Scam communications often include information with the intent to trick the consumer into believing the communication is legitimate. The scammer may also pretend to be ‘helping’ the consumer (i.e. assisting the consumer with a technical problem with their computer).In recent years, the ACMA has observed that scam activity is becoming increasingly ‘smart’, including through use of highly convincing branding assets and content that dynamically adapts to online interactions and prompts for consumer information in a realistic way.These scams can seamlessly replicate the experience of using a company’s legitimate website, whether it is being accessed through a smartphone, tablet or desktop computer.Impact of scam activityWhile there are no definitive statistics about the prevalence of scam activity and its impact, ACMA and ACCC data and research indicate the scale is significant and is increasing. The level of scam activity is also likely to be under-reported, as people who lose money to scams or fraud often feel ashamed and embarrassed, which can lead to under-reporting or it not being reported at all.Approximately 26 per cent of complaints to the ACMA about unsolicited communications relate to scam communications. In 2017–18, the ACMA received 40,098 telemarketing complaints, 10,826 of which related to scams. In the same period, the ACMA received 4,000 spam complaints, 480 of which related to scams, representing approximately 26 per cent of all unsolicited communications complaints received to the ACMA in 2017–18.The ACMA’s 2018 consumer research indicates that Australians are increasingly receiving and concerned by scams. The research found:72 per cent of fixed-line phone users had received a scam call in the previous six months 50 per cent of mobile phone users had received a scam call in the previous six monthsSix in 10 Australians were more concerned than they were five years ago about scam calls.The research also found that while many participants adopted behaviours or used technology to help them manage scams, they are more concerned about these types of calls than others because of the potential harms, including financial loss and misuse of personal data. Surveyed participants raised concerns about their impact on those in potentially vulnerable circumstances, such as older Australians.The ACCC’s Scamwatch website received 177,516 reports about scams in 2018 (see Figure 1 below), compared with 161,528 reports in 2017 and 155,034 in 2016. Australians suffer significant (and increasing) financial loss from scam activity. Financial loss can lead to financial hardship and psychological distress. Reports to Scamwatch indicated more than $107 million was lost by Australians to scams in 2018. This compares with $90.9 million reported lost in 2017 and $83.5 million reported lost in 2016. Figure 1: Reported scams to Scamwatch from 1 January to 31 December 2018. While significant, financial loss is only one impact of scam activity. The real-life stories published by the ACCC’s Scamwatch website reveal the broader impact and increasing sophistication of scams, and the broad demographic of Australians affected. Research conducted by IDCARE in 2014 indicated that around a third of those impacted by identify theft suffered harms other than financial to the point that they needed support, including from qualified health practitioners. Scam activity also undermines public confidence and trust in telecommunications networks and in the use of legitimate marketing mon scam techniques usedScam activity is constantly evolving—particularly as consumers become savvier, industry addresses vulnerabilities and takes new initiatives, and regulators act. Some common and relatively widespread scams are listed below. CLI over-stampingScam calls may over-stamp the CLI of a call (which would generally display the number from which the call originates) to display a number that may be more familiar or recognisable to the person receiving the call. This makes it more likely that the call will be answered.A prominent recent example of this are scam calls that have a CLI displayed that is associated with the Australian Taxation Office, despite not originating from that number. This scam involves contacting potential victims, with the scammer pretending to represent the ATO and claiming that the person owes money.It is relatively easy and straightforward to over-stamp the originating number of a call with any number that the caller would like to be displayed. For example, an overseas caller may over-stamp their number with an Australian number.While CLI over-stamping has legitimate purposes (e.g. providing a centralised call-back for a call centre, or a doctor who wishes to call a patient from a personal phone but have the practice number displayed), the capability is exploited by criminals.PhishingScam SMS/MMS and emails may use fake information, trusted/well-known brands and spurious links leading to malware or locations where criminals can steal personal information. Impersonation and gaining trust are a key tactic of phishing scams. This type of scam activity is becoming increasingly sophisticated and harder to identify as scammers copy legitimate content such as logos and text but replace links in the communication so that they direct potential victims to malicious websites. Organisations recently impersonated by scammers include Medicare, ANZ, NAB, Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and the NSW Office of State Revenue.As noted above, the ACMA has observed increasingly sophisticated, or ‘smart phishing’ in operation.‘Wangiri’ type scams This type of scam involves many telephone calls of very a short duration (i.e. the call may ring once only) to entice a call-back, usually to an overseas number. The short duration of the call means most calls will go unanswered. Return calls incur a high charge—the longer the call, the higher the charge. Fake offersScams may attempt to lure a consumer to transfer funds or give up personal information through fake offers for jobs, investments, products and charities. Previously, these offers were often identifiable as scams because the offer could be seen to be ‘too good to be true’ or the communications included spelling errors and poor grammar. However, this type of scam is becoming more sophisticated and often bears close resemblance to legitimate communications, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to tell the difference.Threats, extortion and offers of assistance These scams may include threats to extort money out of consumers (such as fake tax debt scams) or fake offers of assistance (such as remote-access computer assistance scams). These scams attempt to obtain personal information from consumers and/or have consumers transfer funds to the scammer. Compliance data and reports suggest these types of scams are becoming increasingly sophisticated and aggressive.The ACCC publishes detailed information about common scams and consumer education in The little black book of scams. The ACCC, ACMA, Stay Smart Online and other agencies all also issue consumer scam alerts where there is a significant risk of harm. Scam telephone calls and SMS messagesDue to their prevalence and the scale of financial impact, scam telephone calls and SMS messages are a key focus of this project. Telephone scams present an increased risk of harm to consumers, particularly to those in vulnerable circumstances. The reasons for this include: the immediacy of the contactthe personal interaction enables more effective emotional manipulationkeeping people on the phone until a payment has been made prevents them from being able to stop and think or check the situation with anyone elsegreater likelihood that older Australians will have a fixed-line service (and not use or have available caller ID or call blocking technologies) information suggesting that blocking or filtering scams via email, instant messaging or OTT services is likely to be cheaper and more effective at a service level. In 2018, 83,247 telephone scams were reported to Scamwatch with losses of more than $30 million. During the same period, there were 25,595 SMS message scams reported to Scamwatch, with losses of more than $2.1 million reported.Consumer attitudes and behaviourThe ACMA’s 2018 consumer research indicates that the attributes most strongly associated with scam calls include: the claims of the caller seem implausible the caller had a heavy accent or poor English, an unknown or overseas number displayed on the CLIthere was a pause or silence after the call was answered. Many of these attributes (such as an accent or an unknown or overseas number displayed on the CLI), do not necessarily signify a scam call. This demonstrates, in part, that it can be difficult for consumers to distinguish between legitimate and scam communications.There is an indication of changing consumer behaviours and adoption of new technologies to assist with managing scam calls. ACMA research shows that some Australians are:screening unsolicited calls on their mobiles using information that identifies the call as a potential scam (41%) using call blocking settings (34%)using smartphone call alert display (28%). However, with a significant proportion of Australians not using anything to screen their calls, call screening technology—and use of it—is not likely to be adequate or widespread enough to deal with the harms effectively.One example of a device to assist consumers to manage unwanted calls is a handset for a fixed-line service offered by Telstra that requires unknown callers to leave their name before the call is connected. The name of the caller is then announced, and the recipient of the call can choose to answer, block or send the call to the answering machine. Consumers are also using call blocking applications or tools to reduce the number of scam calls received on smart phones and other devices. These applications may have a cost to access full features, which may prohibit uptake. The crowd-sourced process by which some of these applications identify unwanted calls may increase the risk that legitimate communications are blocked. Additionally, some applications may require consumers to agree to terms and conditions that are unclear or even permit the use of the consumer’s data by third work and service attributesAny-to-any connectivity is increasingly cost-effective and simple due to the maturity of telecommunications interconnect arrangements. Unfortunately, this is also likely to assist the proliferation of scam activity, in terms of cost barriers and obfuscation.A communication may traverse many network operators before it enters Australia. To correctly route calls, information about the destination and originating number must be provided. This information is passed from one network operator to the next. It is relatively easy for the originating number to be changed in transit (particularly if the caller has no interest in ensuring that the originating number is displayed for a return call path). Alternatively, also in transit, the CLI for the call can also be configured to display information that is different from the originating number. These types of changes are not necessarily fraudulent but do make it easier for the origins of scam communications to be obscured.In Australia, the ACMA is responsible for allocating telephone numbers to service providers under the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2015. Service providers then issue those numbers to end-users or sub-allocate them to other service providers. However, it is important to note that the allocation and issue arrangements for numbers have no relation to the CLI for a call and it is possible for someone undertaking malicious activity to display any number on a communication.The ACCC is responsible for regulating telecommunications access arrangements, where network operators must allow interconnection of their network facilities with other network operators. When routing telephone calls and SMS messages, network operators must ensure they provide equivalent levels of service for calls regardless of the network from which the call originates. Commercial incentives also drive network operators to facilitate the correct and timely routing of traffic. Combined, these obligations may pose difficulties for a network operator if it wishes to block communications where scam activity is not definitively established or is only suspected.Content aggregators provide services that allow the mass sending of content via mediums such as SMS messages. It is likely that some scams delivered via SMS messages and terminating in Australia use the service of content aggregators. These content aggregators and distributers may have a role to play to ensure they do not distribute malicious and illegal content. However, like telecommunications network operators, identifying scam communications can be difficult and blocking or refusing to send content may pose commercial risks for an aggregator.Scam emails and OTT messagesScams perpetuated using email and OTT messages also pose a threat to consumers in Australia. Scam emails take numerous forms, including hidden computer malware in an attachment, phishing, and fake offers.Email is the most common method for phishing scams and scammers can be sophisticated at mimicking well-known brands. Existing email authentication methods such as those published by the Internet Engineering Taskforce (IETF) are generally highly effective at auto-filtering scam email messages and delivering them to recipients’ junk folders, which limits consumer exposure to scam email communications. It is estimated that network-provided email services filter up to 98 per cent of spam emails while Google has claimed it filters 99.9 per cent of spam to Gmail accounts. Scam OTT messages may try to get a consumer to either click a malicious link in the message or to provide personal information in response. OTT messages can be used over social networking service providers and messaging/calling apps such as Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp.The ACMA understands that for the most popular of these apps, there are a range of initiatives to address scam activity, such as provision of reporting mechanisms and security features that the services have implemented. Some examples include:Facebook recently announced the introduction of a scam reporting button on its platform in the UK to report scam advertisements.Messages between WhatsApp users are protected with an end-to-end encryption protocol so that third parties and WhatsApp cannot read them. This makes it significantly more difficult for a user to be targeted by scams that are perpetrated as a result of data obtained through a ‘man-in-the-middle’ attack whereby an unauthorised and undetected third party can read the content of communications between two other parties. Viber is a communications service like WhatsApp that promotes itself as ‘always secure’. Viber notes that it cannot read personal messages, it uses end-to-end encryption, does not store messages after they are delivered, and it does not sell user private information. Viber also states that reducing spam and keeping it from being delivered to users is a priority, and it uses spam detection systems to keep spam to a minimum. Microsoft (including Skype) is responding to scam and cyber threats via its Cyber Defence Operations Centre and its Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit. These initiatives aim to protect the computing environment in which Microsoft operates and to use advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to identify, investigate, disrupt and dismantle sophisticated online criminal networks.Twilio is a cloud communication platform that helps users add messaging, voice and video to web and mobile applications. Twilio requires users to confirm ownership of a phone number before initiating a phone call using their interface system. It also bills by the minute to deter short duration calls, has delayed throughput to prevent new users sending a high volume of messages immediately and uses artificial intelligence and other instrumentation to identify patterns that might indicate abuse. The security features provided by these services may reduce the risk that users will be impacted by unwanted communication and scams. However, this does not mean that there is no risk, and users must remain vigilant to protect themselves.Scamwatch data indicates that the frequency and impact of scams reported over OTT services such as mobile applications and social media are still significant, albeit less than those delivered by telephone. More than 9,000 scams reported to Scamwatch in 2018 were classified as delivered via social networking or mobile applications, with losses of more than $20 million reported. During the same period, there were 41,170 email scams reported to Scamwatch, with more $25 million reported as lost. -72390119062500The ACMA also understands that some service providers that have traditionally operated online may now provide services using Australian telephone numbers. Furthermore, the increased prevalence of IP-based communications could increase the opportunities for those perpetrating scams to contact Australians at very low to no cost. In this context, providers of IP-based and OTT communications services need to be actively engaged with action to disrupt scam activity, including those used in other communications channels such as telephony. Question 10: What information do you have about the prevalence and impact of scams on telecommunications networks which could inform this project? (If you are a network operator or service provider, what information do you have about scam activity on your network or service?)Question 11:If you are an organisation representing the interests of consumers, what information can you provide to assist in quantifying the scale of scam activity on Australian telecommunications networks?Question 12:If you are an organisation that has been the subject of scam activity, what information can you provide to assist in quantifying the scale of scam activity on Australian telecommunications networks?Question 13: What education and awareness raising (including alerts) about scam communications benefit consumers? center-8636000Question 14: If you are a network operator or service provider, what education and awareness raising tools do you provide your customers to assist them to manage scam communications?Question 15:If you are an organisation that represents the interests of consumers or an organisation that has been the subject of scam activity, what awareness-raising and education initiatives have you implemented?International initiativesAs identified above, scam activity is a global issue, both in terms of impact and cross-jurisdictional activity. While each telecommunications market has its own characteristics and regulatory arrangements, there remain commonalties across all markets given the interconnected global nature of telecommunications.In 2018, the ACMA commissioned research on international approaches to dealing with unsolicited communications. The jurisdictions examined include the US, Canada, NZ, the UK, Singapore and the Netherlands. The research found that governments in these jurisdictions view scam communications as a serious global problem. Those agencies surveyed confirmed the importance of collaboration with industry to increase a shared sense of responsibility for managing consumer harms.The research also noted that jurisdictions are not managing unsolicited communications in isolation. The approach in some jurisdictions is tending to cross over with the management of other issues such as privacy laws and network operation (particularly for communication over fixed-line services, where efforts are being made to block nuisance communications before they reach consumers).In this context, the ACMA is aware of several recent and promising technological initiatives to address scams overseas markets and is keen to explore whether any of the approaches may be applicable in the Australian context.The international approaches outlined in the research and below reflect a range of regulatory responses employed to address the proliferation of scam communications. Industry-led collaborationsIn July 2018, the NZ Telecommunications Forum Inc (TCF) published a voluntary code for scam calling prevention. The code sets out terms for sharing information between retail service providers and network operators who are signatories. It also facilitates the reporting of scam CLI numbers by consumers to their network provider and addresses ‘un-blocking’ of numbers that were flagged as scam calls in error so that network operators can ensure legitimate traffic is not subject to inappropriate blocking. In the UK, major mobile network operators have developed a service called SMS PhishGuard to prevent scams via SMS messages. Starting with the UK banking industry and UK government agencies, a new SMS SenderID Protection Registry scheduled for early 2019 will be established by industry. This will allow participants to register and protect the message headers they use in SMS messages to consumers. The new registry will significantly reduce the ability for scammers to send messages impersonating a brand in the message header by checking whether the sender using that sender ID is the genuine registered party. This information will be used to block any messages that are fraudulent. It is proposed to expand this initiative to additional merchants and other public sector bodies that use SMS messages in the UK.In the US, the 25-member Industry Traceback Group (ITG) led by USTelecom, shares information on scam calls to locate local and overseas scam callers and then passes on the information with law enforcement agencies. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has acknowledged the work of the group, saying it has helped reduce the amount of time needed to conduct traceback investigations from months?to?weeks.Identification of scam communications The US and Canada have focused on CLI authentication as one means to combat scam calls. Since 2014, the FCC has taken a co-regulatory approach and has been encouraging the telecommunications industry to develop a solution to prevent scam calls and over-stamped calling numbers. The response of industry has been to develop two new technical standards called STIR (Secure Telephony Identity Revisited) and SHAKEN (Secure Handling of Asserted information using toKENs). Under the STIR/SHAKEN framework, calls traveling through interconnected phone networks would have their CLI ‘signed’ as legitimate by the originating carrier and validated by other carriers before reaching consumers. The framework digitally validates the transfer of phone calls passing through a complex web of networks, allowing the phone company of the consumer receiving the call to verify that a call is from the person making it.Phone companies in the USA including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon and Google have committed to the implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework and have outlined their caller ID authentication plans to the FCC. T-Mobile claims it detects and notifies customers of 225 million ‘scam likely’ calls per week by using STIR/SHAKEN standards-compliant spoofing detection technology and a database that is updated every six peting USA network operators AT&T and Comcast have announced that they will use the STIR/SHAKEN framework to offer call authentication between their networks later in 2019.In the UK, Ofcom has formed a Strategic Working Group (SWG) consisting of nine major network operators, with a remit to explore technical measures to reduce the impact of unlawful nuisance calls, including by blocking and stopping calls. Members of the SWG have identified characteristics of nuisance calls and each month measure the traffic across their networks that fit these characteristics, reporting that information to Ofcom. A memorandum of understanding sets out the framework for voluntary co-operation between network operators on technical measures used to combat scam calls.In January 2018, the CRTC in Canada determined that authentication and verification of caller ID information for Internet Protocol (IP) voice calls based on STIR/SHAKEN should be implemented by Canadian network operators no later than the end of March 2019.On 2 February 2019, the CRTC was provided with an industry update on the status of establishing a STIR/SHAKEN governance authority for Canada. A group of Canadian network operators have formed a joint corporation with the intention of becoming the Secure Token ID Governance Authority in Canada. The corporation titled ‘10849448’ advised it was working to a very aggressive timeline and expected to deliver a status report to CRTC by the end of March 2019.Direct regulation has also been implemented internationally to identify scam communications, with Ofcom also mandating new CLI rules that require network operators to:provide free-of-charge CLI facilities to customers and have the CLI feature enabled by defaultensure that, where technically feasible, any CLI data that is provided includes a valid, dialable telephone number that uniquely identifies the callertake reasonable steps, where technically feasible, to identify and block calls on which an invalid or non-dialable CLI is provided. Warning and blocking of scam communicationsInternationally, some network operators have proactively introduced call-blocking services for consumers to help manage scam calls. In the UK, British Telecom (BT) provides a free call-blocking service, Call Protect, which proactively monitors scam calls on the ‘BT Blacklist’ and automatically directs them to junk voicemail. Customers can also report scam calls directly to BT. In 2013, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Ofcom in the UK launched a joint action plan to address the harm to consumers caused by nuisance calls and messages. Research indicates that the proportion of adults with a landline receiving any type of nuisance call on their landline telephone has fallen from a peak of 73 per cent in July 2015 to 43 per cent in January 2019. Total complaints about nuisance calls have also fallen for the third consecutive year, reversing close to a decade’s trend of annual increases.In September 2016, Vodafone UK announced the installation of new technology to block bulk nuisance and scam calls from entering its network and said that during testing it was able to block more than 425,000 nuisance and scam calls in one day. In August 2018 it also announced the deployment of new technology to prevent all identified ‘wangiri’ calls from reaching Vodafone UK customers, and stated that it blocks two million scam calls a day and has blocked more than 500 million calls since 2016. In the US, the industry administered Do-Not-Originate program (DNO Registry) codified by the FCC is a scheme developed to block numbers that should never originate any call (including invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a network operator, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber).During a recent legal case, it was noted that the DNO Registry was considered a success by the FCC in that it played a significant role in reducing scam calls purporting to be from the Internal Revenue Service by approximately 90 per cent from September 2016 to February 2017.There are also several direct regulatory responses internationally that are requiring network operators to block calls. These include:The FCC is introducing new call-blocking rules that will allow network operators to block certain illegal scam calls. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) publishes a list of numbers titled the ‘Do Not Call (DNC) Reported Calls Data’ which is used by telecommunications carriers and other industry partners to implement call-blocking solutions to prevent auto-generated calls from reaching consumers.In March 2018, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) in the Netherlands joined a public-private collective to combat international tech support scams. As part of this collaboration, the ACM will work with banks, network operators, and suppliers of operating systems and software to introduce measures to thwart and prevent scams.In December 2018, the CRTC gave network operators a year to implement call blocking systems. When implemented, calls with a CLI that either exceeds 15 digits or does not conform to a number that can be dialled will be blocked before reaching the called party.In the UK, Ofcom has strengthened the General Conditions of Entitlement which allow withdrawal of number allocations from service providers if numbers are used to a significant extent to cause harm or nuisance and if the network operator has failed to take adequate steps to prevent such harm or nuisance. Consumers in overseas jurisdictions are also acting to block calls by using call blocking applications. In the US, some network operators such as AT&T now also provide a basic, free call-blocking tool to customers. -78740-11747500Question 16: If you are a network operator or service provider, what are your views on the effectiveness of the international initiatives discussed here, including their applicability in the Australian context?Question 17: Are there any regulatory, commercial or other barriers for network operators and service providers in relation to the international initiatives discussed if introduced in the Australian context?Question 18: If any of the international initiatives were to be introduced in Australia, how could they be implemented? Invitation to commentMaking a submissionThe ACMA invites comments on the issues set out in this discussion paper. Online submissions can be made via the comment function or by uploading a document. Submissions in Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format are preferred.Submissions by post can be sent to: The ManagerStrategy, Intelligence and Projects SectionAustralian Communications and Media AuthorityPO Box 13112Law CourtsMelbourne VIC 8010The closing date for submissions is COB, 10 May 2019. Consultation enquiries can be emailed to unsolicitedcommsprojects@.au.Publication of submissionsThe ACMA publishes submissions on our website, including personal information (such as names and contact details). However, in this case, the ACMA accepts that a submitter may have good reason to provide information in confidence, particularly if submissions cover matters that may be considered sensitive from a commercial or security perspective. If confidentially is being claimed over part or all of a submission, submitters are requested to identify the material (including any personal information) over which confidentiality is claimed and provide an explanation for the claim. Confidential information will not be published or otherwise released unless required or authorised by law.That noted, the ACMA particularly welcomes submissions, or parts of submissions that can be made public in this consultation process to aid in transparency.PrivacyPrivacy and consultation provides information about the ACMA’s collection of personal information during consultation and how we handle that information. Information on the Privacy Act 1988 and the ACMA’s privacy policy (including how to access or correct personal information, how to make a privacy complaint and how we will deal with the complaint) is available at .au/privacypolicy. Appendix?A—Terms of Reference for the Scam Technology ProjectContextThe Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will, in consultation with key stakeholders, undertake a Scam Technology Project (the Project) to explore practical technological solutions to address the proliferation of scams over Australian telecommunications networks.The Project addresses:a request for assistance from the Minister for Communications and the Arts (the minister) to identify realistic options for addressing consumer harms caused by international scam callersFinding 10 of the ACMA’s report to the minister on the potential for industry self-regulation of commercial electronic messages, the Do Not Call Register and the Integrated Public Number DatabaseRecommendation 3 of the Communications sector market study final report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC).The ACMA’s report found that ‘scam unsolicited communications are a significant issue for consumers and ongoing work across government and industry is required to reduce the impact’.The ACMA’s 2018 consumer experience research found that there was greater concern about scam calls than all other types of unsolicited calls, and more than half of Australian adults who reported receiving a scam call on their landline in the past six months were receiving them daily or weekly. The research also found that more than three-quarters of Australian adults feel not enough is being done to protect individuals from scam calls.Consumer complaints about scams are the number one complaint type to the ACMA in relation to the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 and the Spam Act 2003. In 2017–18, more than 26 per cent of complaints about telemarketing and spam concerned scams.The ACCC’s market study recommended that ‘telecommunications industry members must, as a priority, collaborate with regulators and government agencies to develop and implement technical solutions at the network level to protect consumers from the significant harm that flows from spoofing and related scams’.The Project will investigate what can be done to disrupt scam activity, including possible consumer or network-based solutions like call/message/email blocking, sharing of information, network traffic analysis and authentication protocols.Terms of ReferenceThe ACMA will examine available and potential technological solutions that could disrupt and reduce the level and severity of scams being perpetrated over telecommunications networks. As part of its examination, the ACMA will consider:existing and emerging technologies that enable scams to be perpetrated against Australiansexisting technologies that can reduce scam perpetrationnew or emerging technologies that could further reduce scamsthe costs and benefits of existing and potential solutions, implementation issues and timinginternational developments and approachesother relevant matters.The Project recognises that many scams may involve a combination of contact methods. The Project will consider phone calls, SMS/OTT messages and email scams.The findings will be made available to key stakeholders, including the Minister for Communications and the Arts. Public release of the findings, or extracts of the findings, will depend upon the commercial and security sensitivities of the matters canvassed.Reference groupThe ACMA will establish a reference group comprising representatives of the ACCC and the Australian Cyber Security Centre to support its undertaking of the Project. The Department of Communications and the Arts will participate in the reference group as an observer. Reference group members will provide strategic advice to the Project and insights from their associated work on scams.The ACMA will also consult with other government agencies, the telecommunications industry, large technology companies operating in Australia, organisations representing the interests of consumers, and international stakeholders with a role in addressing scams in the areas of telecommunications, consumer protection, law enforcement, cyber safety, cyber security and fraud.Matters to which the ACMA will have regardIn undertaking the Project, the ACMA will have regard to:the importance of communications networks for the economic and social development of all Australianscurrent policy and regulatory settings about scamsinternational developments to reduce scams that are being supported by governments, industry and/or consumersany research on the concerns of consumers in relation to scams delivered over telecommunications networksadvice from the reference group and other stakeholdersthe costs to consumers and industry of any potential solutions.Out of scopeThe following matters are out of scope for the Project:Scams perpetrated over the internet that are not initiated by an unsolicited electronic communication to a consumer (for example, online dating or shopping scams) and scams that are not perpetrated over communications networks (postal or in-person scams).Reporting and timingThe ACMA will complete its preliminary examination by July 2019. A final report will be completed by December 2019.Appendix?B—Glossary5G (fifth-generation mobile telecommunications)The next iteration of broadband mobile telecommunications services, 5G is expected to provide increased data rates and reduced latency to support greater connectivity and enable M2M (machine to machine) services and the IoT. Trials of the technology are currently underway and it is anticipated that 5G will be commercially available later in 2019.ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)Commonwealth regulatory body with responsibilities derived from the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority)Commonwealth regulatory authority for broadcasting, radiocommunications, telecommunications and some online content, with responsibilities under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 and related Acts. Established on 1 July 2005 following a merger of the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Broadcasting Authority.ACORN (Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network)National online system that allows the public to?securely report instances of cybercrime. ACORN is provided by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC)?ACSC (Australian Cyber Security Centre)Commonwealth Government’s lead agency on national cyber security.? AI (artificial intelligence)The ability of a digital program/computer systems to perform tasks commonly associated with human intelligence, including learning, problem solving and pattern munications Alliance (Communications Alliance Ltd)Telecommunications industry organisation formed on 1 September 2006 from the merger of the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) and the Service Providers Association Network (SPAN).CLICalling Line Identification or caller ID enables telephone number of calling number to be displayed. Content aggregatorA service provider who specialises in the widespread distribution of content, often via SMS message. CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) The CRTC is an administrative tribunal that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest in Canada.DNCR (Do Not Call Register)Register established by the ACMA that allows individuals to register their home and mobile numbers to opt out of receiving most unsolicited telemarketing calls and faxes, with limited exemptions for public interest organisations.DoCA (Department of Communications and the Arts)Since September 2015, Commonwealth department responsible for, among other things, communications policy and programs; formerly known as Department of Communications.fixed-line phone serviceCovers the delivery of voice services over a copper pair-based PSTN access network or fixed-line broadband networks. Includes fixed VoIP services.IETF (Internet Engineering Taskforce) Internet standards body, developing open standards through open processes.IoT (Internet of Things)The interconnection of many devices and objects utilising internet protocols, with or without the active involvement of individuals. This may include laptops, routers, tablets and smartphones, which are integral to operating, reading and analysing the state of IoT devices.IP (internet protocol)The main routing protocol used in the internet—it operates at the logical network layer and is a code used to label packets of data sent across the internet, identifying both the sending and receiving hosts. IP is also used to designate data, traffic, services and equipment supported by or used in the internet.IPND (Integrated Public Number Database)Database of number, name and address information about customers of telecommunications services in Australia, for all carriers and CSPs.ISDN (integrated services digital network)A high-speed network for carrying voice and data services in digital format over the PSTN. Can be considered an evolutionary step between dial-up and today’s broadband internet services.ISP (internet service provider)A carriage service provider offering internet access to the public or another service provider.legacy technologiesOlder telecommunications systems becoming redundant due to technological advances e.g. Non-IP telecommunication systems. MMS (multimedia messaging service)A standard way to send messages that include multimedia content to and from a mobile phone over a cellular network.NBN (National Broadband Network)The national wholesale-only open access data network in Australia offering high-speed broadband to all Australian premises using a multi-technology mix constructed by NBN Co workA group or system of interconnected things. In the context of this paper, this relates to interconnected communications work operatorPerson supplying or proposing to supply certain carriage services to a customer, including a commercial entity acquiring telecommunications capacity or services from a carrier for resale to a third party. Under the Telecommunications Act, internet and subscription TV service providers fall within the definition of CSPs.NPP (New Payments Platform)Payment system that enables customers of different banks to make and receive real-time payments, 24 hours a day, 7 days a weekNumbering planThe Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2015 which specifies telephone numbers for use in Australia and the arrangements for allocation, surrender and withdrawal of those numbers. The Numbering Plan also places and obligation on service providers using telephone numbers to provide number portability for services using portable numbers.OTT (over-the-top services)A general term for services delivered over a network that ride on top of the infrastructure service and are provided independently of the network operator.Over-stamping (spoofing)The practice of causing the caller ID to present as a number different from which the call originates. This can be used to make a call falsely appear to be from a trusted or local source. ?phishingThe fraudulent practice of sending emails purporting to be from reputable companies in order to induce individuals to reveal personal information, i.e. passwords and credit card details.service providerA company that provides consumers with access to a communication service. SHAKEN Secure Handling of Asserted information using toKENs is a technical standard used for phone call authentication. smartphoneA mobile phone built on a mobile operating system, with more advanced computing capability and connectivity.SMS (short message service)A mobile telecommunications data transmission service that allows users to send short text messages to each other using a mobile handset.spamUnsolicited commercial electronic messages sent by email, SMS, MMS and/or instant messaging.STIRSecure Telephony Identity Revisited are technical standards developed for call authentication. TCFNew Zealand Telecommunications Forum. UCENetUnsolicited Communications Enforcement Network. A network of global regulatory and enforcement agencies responsible for regulating unsolicited communications. VoIP—voice over internet protocolDelivery of voice communications over the internet or some other connected network, instead of the PSTN. wangiriNamed after a Japanese word which loosely translates to ‘one ring and cut’.Appendix?C—List of questionsQuestion 1: What current methods and tools do consumers use to block or manage scam communications? Are they effective? Why/why not?Question 2: If you are a network operator or service provider, what current tools and services do you provide your customers to assist them to manage scam communications?Question 3: What current tools and methods are used and/or available for network operators and service providers to identify and block scam communications? Are they effective? Why/why not?Question 4:What challenges or impediments exist that limit the ability of network operators and service providers to identify and block scam communications?Question 5: What are the opportunities and challenges for greater collaboration among network operators (including international operators) and service providers to disrupt scam communications?Question 6: What current information sharing can be leveraged to disrupt scam communications holistically over Australian telecommunication networks, including between industry and/or with government?Question 7: Are there any regulatory, commercial or other barriers for network operators and service providers to act on disrupting scam communications?Question 8: What, if any, regulatory settings may assist to prevent or disrupt scam communications?Question 9:Do established commercial practices and/or use of technology (such as traffic-swapping, least-cost routing) facilitate scam activity? Are there opportunities to disrupt scam activity in relation to these practices or technology?Question 10: What information do you have about the prevalence and impact of scams on telecommunications networks which could inform this project? (If you are a network operator or service provider, what information do you have about scam activity on your network or service?)Question 11:If you are an organisation representing the interests of consumers, what information can you provide to assist in quantifying the scale of scam activity on Australian telecommunications networks?Question 12:If you are an organisation that has been the subject of scam activity, what information can you provide to assist in quantifying the scale of scam activity on Australian telecommunications networks?Question 13: What education and awareness raising (including alerts) about scam communications benefit consumers? Question 14: If you are a network operator or service provider, what education and awareness raising tools do you provide your customers to assist them to manage scam communications?Question 15:If you are an organisation that represents the interests of consumers or an organisation that has been the subject of scam activity, what awareness-raising and education initiatives have you implemented?Question 16: If you are a network operator or service provider, what are your views on the effectiveness of the international initiatives discussed here, including their applicability in the Australian context?Question 17: Are there any regulatory, commercial or other barriers for network operators and service providers in relation to the international initiatives discussed if introduced in the Australian context?Question 18: If any of the international initiatives were to be introduced in Australia, how could they be implemented? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download