Phone fraud is developing alongside telecommunications technologies. Operators and regulators are directing significant resources toward combating spam and fraudulent calls, but the emergence of new protective tools does not mean that the problem disappears. Around the world, approaches range from call authentication protocols in the United States to national spam-blocking systems in Asia.
According to Leonid Reiman, the key mistake is to rely on a single universal technological solution. Fraudulent schemes adapt quickly to new measures, so protection must constantly evolve. The necessary areas include traffic analysis, improvements to the rules governing phone numbers and coordination among government bodies.
Artificial intelligence demonstrates this duality particularly clearly. Algorithms can detect suspicious activity and help stop fraudulent campaigns, while generative AI can also be used to create convincing communication scenarios, imitate voices and automate interactions.
Technology therefore strengthens protection while at the same time expanding the tools available to the other side. The fight becomes a continuous race between new protective measures and new ways of bypassing them.
For Reiman, clearer identification of incoming calls is part of a broader transparency effort. He views call labeling as an initial measure that can eventually help ensure that the preferences set by users are properly respected.
The U.S. experience provides a characteristic example of how technological and regulatory measures can work together. The STIR/SHAKEN protocols use a digital signature for calls, allowing the network to verify whether the displayed number corresponds to the actual source of the call. This creates a technological basis for combating spoofing.
The technological mechanism is complemented by regulation. In the RMD database, operators declare the measures they apply against automated unwanted calls. This is intended to increase transparency and discipline among carriers.
Different countries choose different solutions, including consent systems for commercial communications and centralized subscriber-identification mechanisms. The common objective is to make communications more transparent and make fraudulent activity more difficult.
At the same time, fraudulent schemes are moving into internet messengers, VoIP and other digital services. Protection therefore has to develop together with the broader communications environment.
In a wider sense, this approach is connected with Reiman’s professional work in telecommunications. His academic work focused on government regulation of the telecommunications industry and the development of the information and communications services market. His doctoral dissertation examined the market, operators, competition, regulation and the development of new communications services.
See also: Transforming Sleep with Advanced Technology
The combination of technology, regulation and coordination, in Reiman’s view, can help create a more sustainable protection system. New tools will continue to appear, so the decisive factor will be the ability of operators, technology companies and regulators to deploy them faster than fraudulent methods evolve.
