1. TITLE: Contribution on Display Guidelines
ATIS PTSC
Denver, Colorado
August 2-3, 2017
Contribution
TITLE: Contribution on Display Guidelines
SOURCE*: Hala Mowafy (Ericsson) and Jonathan Nelson (Hiya)
_______________________________
Abstract
This presentation aims to progress discussion on the desired treatment of STIR/SHAKEN data and analytics to help develop display guidelines.
NOTICE
This contribution has been prepared to assist the ATIS PTSC. This document is offered to the Committee as a basis for discussion and is not a binding agreement on Ericsson or any other company. The requirements are subject to change in form and numerical value after more study. Ericsson specifically reserves the right to add to, or withdraw, the statements contained
CONTACT: Hala Mowafy

2. Discussion Points
Raw data from STIR/SHAKEN attestation + certificate verification vs. Analytics.
Advantages of using Analytics
Call assessment services - the potential categories:
Relying only on STIR/SHAKEN and certificate verification only
Including some form of analytics
The discussion in this presentation applies to consumer markets.

3. The Data We Have
STIR/SHAKEN data and Certificate verification are useful for
Traceability
Accountability
Enforcement
..but does not help
determine the intent of the caller (malicious or not)
Analytics can statistically assess the risk using:
reported TNs (FTC & FCC lists)
social media
reputation data
STIR/SHAKEN and certificate verification results

4. Network Data vs. Analytics
Availability of network data (STIR/SHAKEN) and analytics is expected to vary with time and carrier implementation.
Depending on which set is available, the results could be overly cautious and inaccurate.
End users may choose not to subscribe to an analytics service (even when available).
Network data alone will not deliver the full picture and desired protection.
STIR/SHAKEN is not a service; it is just one of many tools to implement the service.
Analytics alone could provide a reasonable level of protection.

5. Advantages of using Analytics
Can adapt to new scam patterns in a timely manner.
Access to more data about the caller.
Threshold levels can be adjusted.
Subscribers can select from different levels of analytics services (basic to advanced).
NOTE: Subscribers are in a “contract” with the analytics provider and are aware of the possible false positives and negatives that they may receive

6. Decision Points for Recommendations
Should the guidelines recommend “always direct network data as input to the analytics when analytics are involved”?
I.e., rely on the analytics if analytics are available.
When only network data is available, should the guidelines recommend not to base the display solely on it?
What do the various levels of attestation and verification truly convey about the caller?