There are two main reasons to prefer GSMA Call Check to STIR/SHAKEN as a worldwide method to prevent the spoofing of calling line identifiers (CLIs), otherwise known as caller IDs.
1. Superior results now.
2. Enabling superior results in future.
There is a third reason that does not get mentioned when evaluating a product or service against purely technical criteria but which is also important if you want worldwide coverage of anti-fraud controls.
3. GSMA Call Check is a lot cheaper than STIR/SHAKEN.
If the entire planet was governed by a single rational brain then this article would end here. It needs to continue because STIR/SHAKEN has the advantage when it comes to one major selling point.
4. STIR/SHAKEN was designed to boost revenues for certain kinds of businesses and this has carried over into the design of follow-on technologies.
There is a binary choice to be made between the two chief paradigms for validating CLIs, and there is no sensible way to make that choice without setting aside the profit motive so we can fairly look at both options and see how they compare. Loyal readers of Commsrisk will know how long I have been pointing out defects in STIR/SHAKEN and the blatant falsehoods spread by people lobbying for its use. However, it is never sufficient to enumerate the flaws with a product or service. To get improvement, it is necessary to identify a superior alternative. The launch of GSMA Call Check in September 2024 provided a credible alternative to STIR/SHAKEN. Comparing the strengths and weaknesses of GSMA Call Check with STIR/SHAKEN leaves the world with a straightforward choice.
5. Will priority be given to the method that is best suited to reducing fraud globally?
Or
6. Will priority be given to the method that is best suited to increasing telemarketing revenues in richer countries?
Those are the questions I will be asking audiences when speaking at industry events this year. The slides have already been prepared and can be seen below, or downloaded as a PDF from here.
