How McAfee's Scam Detector can help you spot fraudulent texts
How McAfee's Scam Detector can help you spot fraudulent texts
Show Caption
Hide Caption
IRS releases list of 'dirty dozen' scams
From smishing to new client scams, the Internal Revenue Service is warning taxpayers, businesses and tax professionals to watch out for schemes that threaten financial information. (Scripps News Group)
Scripps News
Americans lost over $16 billion to online scams in the past year, a significant increase from the previous year.
McAfee launched Scam Detector, a new feature to help combat increasingly sophisticated online scams.
Scam Detector analyzes emails, texts, and social media content to identify and flag potential scams in real time.
Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this story misidentified the McAfee feature. It's called Scam Detector.
You've seen the message: 'Your package is on hold. Click here.' Or maybe, 'Your EZPass toll payment is past due. Pay now to avoid legal action.'
Welcome to Scamland, population: all of us.
Last year alone, Americans lost more than $16 billion to online scams, a jaw-dropping jump from $10.3 billion the year before, according to the FBI's latest figures.
AI-supercharged cyber crooks target people across every demographic with deepfake videos, bogus texts and phishing emails so slick that they ensnare just about everyone at some point.
Cybersecurity company McAfee just launched a suite of new features it hopes can slow down online crooks and thieves. It's called Scam Detector, and starting today, the company includes it in all its main protection plans, starting at around $50 per year.
I took the new service for a test drive, and I'll get more into how it works and what it does in a second. But first, the bigger question — can it slow the rising tide of scams that seem to get eerily smarter with each click?
The emotional toll behind the click
'I had a bunch of packages on the way, so the text [from a mail carrier] made total sense. It fit the moment perfectly,' 34-year-old DeShawn Hoskins, a filmmaker in Austin, Texas, told me over the phone. One tap, and he was out more than $400. 'It made me feel like a sucker,' he admitted.
'It was one click. That's all it took. I'll never forget how fast it happened,' said Cory Camp, 30, a personal trainer and life coach who also lives in Austin. The text message appeared to come from Verizon, but it was actually from scammers who hijacked Camp's SIM card, leaving him with a dead phone and new carrier bills that took months to recover. 'I felt like an idiot. I really did. I thought this kind of thing only happened to older people.'
And then, there's Beth Hyland, a 54-year-old administrative assistant in Portage, Michigan, who was swept up in a whirlwind romance on Tinder by a man she planned to marry. He was handsome, attentive and an incredibly proficient conman.
In just two months, he not only swept Hyland off her feet, proposed, and convinced her to wire him $26,000 — a huge part of her retirement savings — to 'unlock' a frozen multimillion-dollar payout. She didn't know he was a scammer until her financial advisor — her first real confidant during the ordeal — gently broke the news.
More on scam prevention: The futuristic device that verifies you're human in the age of AI
'It felt like being kidnapped by aliens. Like I was drugged on my own brain chemicals,' Beth told me over a video call. 'I was falling in love. But it wasn't real. And it nearly destroyed me.'
How are the scammers getting so good?
And just in case you read this and think there's no way it could happen to you, I promise you, it can.
On the morning I was set to interview McAfee for this very story, an email landed in my inbox — apparently from their team — asking me to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Totally normal, I thought, moving quickly and only half-paying attention as I tapped the link. We sign NDAs all the time when reviewing unreleased tech. But the page it took me to was obviously a fake.
'I write about scams for a living — and I still fell for it,' I confessed later that day to McAfee's Chief Technology Officer Steve Grobman and Senior Product Manager Adam Curfman over video call. 'But the timing, wording and intention of that specific email was insanely spot-on,' I insisted. 'How was that a coincidence?'
'As a scientist who studies statistics as a big part of my day job, I know correlation doesn't equal causation,' Grobman explained. He said that the scammers aren't random, but rather relentlessly data-driven.
This generation of cyber crooks buys and mines leaked records from last year's 1.35 billion breach notices — everything from our email and phone numbers to recent purchases — to pre-fill their scripts. They scan public posts on Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn for 'trigger events' (moving announcements, vacation selfies, shipment updates) and use third-party cookies on 42 percent of websites to track when you browse banking or shopping sites. Meanwhile, AI-powered bots scrape forums and dark-web markets for the latest successful phishing templates, spinning up new, hyper-targeted campaigns in minutes.
'When you combine all of that, those 'coincidences' become precise pattern recognition. Awareness alone won't cut it — you need a defense that learns and adapts every single day, which is exactly what our AI-powered scam detection delivers,' Grobman said.
Luckily, all the scammers got out of me was a quick bite on the end of their phishing lure. Verification that they reached a person who might, someday, take the bait and get reeled in all the way, hook, line and savings-account-draining-sinker.
Can a tool like Scam Detector stay ahead of the bad guys?
The way Scam Detector works should seem familiar: You sign up, add the app to your mobile devices, give it permissions to scan your email account(s), texts, DMs and social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok and YouTube. On your desktop and laptop, you need to add the web extension.
Then, it runs nonstop in the background of all your devices, scrutinizing every single thing coming in — analyzing emails, texts and videos — to stop and flag potential scams in real time. If it spots one, it sends you an instant notification to say 'hey, don't respond to that one, here's why, and here's how to make sure you don't get duped in the future.' Education is a big part of this specific tool, which is a nice touch.
'We built this to meet people where scams happen most,' said McAfee product manager Adam Curfman. 'That means texts, social apps, even fake videos. This tech flags suspicious content before it can trick you, and we're constantly evolving along with the [scammer techniques].'
There's also an interactive element. If you get any message you're not sure about, you can take a screengrab and text it to McAfee to analyze, which feels a lot like texting a paranoid uncle named 'McAfee,' for a second opinion.
So, will McAfee's scam detection work?
Early users say yes — with a few caveats. 'It's not magic. But it's one more layer between you and getting swindled,' Camp said. 'It's like a seatbelt. You hope you never need it — but you're glad it's there.'
'We've been trained to click fast,' Hoskins added. 'This tech forces you to slow down and think. That alone could save someone's entire life savings.'
McAfee says it can already catch deepfake videos with up to 96 percent accuracy, and scammy texts with a 99 percent track record. For people like Camp, Hoskins, Beth Hyland and yes, even me, all of this is a welcome relief, but it's only part of the picture.
The company also partnered with a non-profit organization called FightCybercrime, and launched the Keep It Real campaign to elevate scam survivor stories. The hope? To end the stigma, warn others, and make cybercrime less isolating overall.
'We don't 'fall' for scams or get 'duped.' We're victimized and manipulated,' Hyland insists. 'That language matters. So does talking about it. Scammers count on our shame and silence.'
Let's be honest — scams are everywhere, and they're not slowing down. But doing something is always better than nothing. At the very least, maybe we can stop blaming ourselves. Maybe we can finally stop clicking.
This story and headline have been updated to correct an error.
Jennifer Jolly is an Emmy Award-winning consumer tech columnist and on-air contributor for "The Today Show.' The views and opinions expressed in this column are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY. Contact her via Techish.com or @JennJolly on Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Internal Docs Raise Questions About Trump IRS Pick Billy Long's ‘No-Show Jobs' And ‘Strange' Schedule Inside A Powerful Agency
It's not quite clear what is happening with former Missouri Congressman Billy Long and his associates at the federal Office of Personnel Management, where he has been a senior advisor to the director since March. And Long's internal OPM calendar, which was obtained and reviewed by TPM, doesn't exactly shed light on the situation. In fact, multiple former OPM employees who discussed the matter with us said Long's schedule — which shows him averaging less than three items per week over the past three months — only adds to the questions about his workload and whether he is complying with recordkeeping requirements. In a statement to TPM, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, suggested the calendar data from OPM indicates Long and some of his associates were taking advantage of the agency, which plays a crucial part in the federal bureaucracy. 'If you ask me, it sure looks like Congressman Long got himself and some pals no-show jobs with maxed-out federal salaries,' Wyden said, adding, 'Somebody who abuses taxpayer dollars like that shouldn't come within 100 miles of the IRS.' Long and an OPM spokesperson did not respond to detailed questions from TPM about his schedule and role at the agency. OPM, which essentially serves as the chief human resources office and personnel policy manager for the federal government, is not the most high profile agency, but it is an influential one. During the second Trump administration, it has played a particularly central role, working closely with the Department of Government Efficiency — the initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk — to slash the federal workforce. Even as his current job is raising eyebrows, Long is on his way to taking a more powerful post. On Tuesday, members of the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-13 along party lines to advance Long's nomination to become commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. That sets the stage for a Senate floor vote that could end in Long's confirmation. President Trump announced his intention to have Long lead the tax agency on Dec. 4, 2024. Long, who represented Missouri's Seventh Congressional District from 2011 until 2023, previously pushed to abolish the IRS and earned a reputation as a staunch Trump loyalist. As TPM has previously reported, Long was one of the members of Congress who promoted bogus conspiracy theories in texts with Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, during the president's fight to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. In the announcement about the nomination, which came before Trump took office for his second term, the president boasted of Long's past work as an auctioneer and described him as the 'consummate 'people person.'' Since then, Long has been installed at OPM as his nomination has worked its way through the Senate. In that time, various controversies have erupted around his nomination to lead the IRS. These include questions about Long's tax credentials, which seem to come from a Florida business that offers a three-day seminar, and about his past private-sector work promoting a non-existent tax credit as well as another credit that has been described as 'riddled with fraud.' And, in recent weeks, Long's stint at the OPM has added to those concerns. On May 23, shortly after Long appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, members provided him with additional written questions for the record. Wyden, who cited the internal OPM calendars, took the opportunity to ask Long about the work that he and three associates — Ben Elleson, Karen Meads, and Mark Czuchry — are doing at OPM. According to Wyden, Long's in-person answer about the role that he and his associates play at the agency left much to be desired. 'If Congressman Long and his associates had real jobs doing serious work at OPM they'd have proven it to us when we gave him the opportunity,' Wyden said. 'The best he could do when staff questioned him on this was to read aloud a printout of a random press release and garble a few brief answers about proofreading and retirement issues, and it wasn't believable at all.' In his written questions to Long, Wyden claimed that both Long and Elleson, who was previously deputy chief of staff and legislative director in Long's House office, were both earning $195,200, which is the maximum salary for a federal worker in Washington D.C. Wyden also referenced the calendars as he asked Long, 'How many hours per week do you work?' Long's response did not directly answer that question or several others that were asked by the senator about his specific accomplishments and schedule. Instead, Long offered a terse three sentence reply. 'As a Senior Advisor at OPM, I work with the Acting Administrator in modernizing and digitizing the federal government retirement system,' Long wrote. 'This includes identifying improvements and discussing options to better serve federal employees. I work at OPM in the Washington, D.C. headquarters.' TPM obtained and reviewed internal OPM calendars that were provided by a source involved in Long's confirmation. They show Long had a total of 34 items on his schedule during March, April, and May, a period that included thirteen weeks and 64 working days. The calendars did not detail the appointments on Long's schedule, but none appeared to last a full day. And many of the items on Long's calendar may not have been work at all. Eleven of them were identified as 'tentative,' rather than scheduled commitments, and one of the blocked off periods was explicitly listed as 'free.' Long's associates at the agency had similarly open schedules. The calendars show Elleson, whose title at OPM is reportedly 'senior adviser,' had 65 items scheduled, an average of slightly more than one thing per day for the three-month period. Of these, eight were listed as 'tentative' and three were identified as 'free.' According to Wyden's questions for the record, Meads, who spent a dozen years serving as the scheduler in Long's district office, is earning a salary of $175,000. Her OPM calendar shows just six items for all of March and April. Everything on Meads' schedule during that two month period was identified as either 'tentative' or 'free.' Meads' calendar for the month of May was completely empty. In his written responses to Wyden, Long defended the work of both of his associates while providing few details. 'Mr. Elleson is a trusted and respected employee with years of experience. He was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures,' Long wrote, later adding, 'Ms. Meads is a seasoned employee with extensive government experience. She was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures.' Elleson and Meads did not respond to requests for comment from TPM. A former senior OPM staffer who left the agency prior to Trump's second term and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation said the lack of activity on these calendars is unusual. 'I can't imagine a day that I had less than six or seven meetings when I was at OPM — or more — that were back to back. That's especially true for senior directors,' the former senior staffer said. The ex-staffer went on to point out that DOGE, the so-called government efficiency agency, has extensively focused on OPM and placed personnel inside the agency. One of the items highlighted by DOGE as part of efforts to eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is a decommissioned mine in Pennsylvania that OPM has used to warehouse retirement records. Because many of the retirement functions that Long has suggested he is focused on are based there rather than in D.C., the former staffer suggested his work should include an abundance of online meetings that would crop up on the calendar. 'As DOGE mocked or made clear, retirement services is based in a mine in Pennsylvania, so your work cannot be done in person,' the former staffer said. Obviously, it is possible that Long and his associates are simply not inputting all of their activity on the internal calendar system. However, the former senior staffer suggested this would raise other issues since federal recordkeeping requirements call for detailed tracking. Long's third associate at OPM, Mark Czuchry, brings up a whole host of other issues unrelated to workload and bookkeeping. Czuchry is a Minnesota lawyer and partner at the financial firm Lifetime Advisors, which employed Long after he left Congress in 2023. Czuchry, a member of his family, and other employees at Lifetime Advisors were among a group of donors who provided Long with an influx of campaign donations after Trump announced his nomination. Long used that cash to reimburse himself for a personal loan he had made to the failed Senate bid that led him to abandon his House seat. And, last month, the news outlet The Lever surfaced a recording where the CEO of a financial services company touted his relationship with Long and asserted that, if he was confirmed, Long planned to bring Czuchry on board at the IRS. In his written questions to Long, Wyden said Czuchry is also earning a $195,200 salary at OPM. Wyden also noted the fact 'Czuchry was one of many individuals who recently contributed to your Senate campaign fund.' Wyden went on to ask about Czuchry's role at OPM and whether Long wanted to have the attorney 'join' him at the IRS. 'Mr. Czuchry is not employed at OPM and does not plan on being employed by the IRS,' Long wrote in his response, which was submitted on Friday. However, OPM records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight last month described Czuchry as a 'senior advisor' at OPM. While Czuchry seems to have worked at the agency in the past, an OPM spokesperson told Bloomberg for a May 15 story that he had left. Czuchry also had an internal OPM calendar. Like the others belonging to Long and his associates, it was conspicuously empty. There were 27 items on Cuzchry's calendar in March and April of this year. Of those, ten were listed as 'tentative' and one was identified as 'free.' In May, Czuchry's calendar displayed six items, all of which were listed as either 'tentative' or 'free.' A second former OPM employee who left the agency earlier this year and declined to be named for fear of retaliation described Long and his associates' calendars as 'pristine' and said the absence of appointments on them was 'incredibly unusual and disturbing.' The employee had firsthand knowledge of the calendars and said they had raised concerns among others at the agency. 'To be a senior adviser and not be having meetings with various teams — particularly for these sweeping policy initiatives — is strange. They're trying to reimagine the federal workforce,' the employee said. 'They would be meeting with multiple teams. You would be seeing advising or fact finding scheduled throughout the day.' The employee also stressed that, due to its role providing oversight to other agencies, OPM is especially concerned with maintaining standards and procedures. Because of this, the person said, it was particularly problematic to 'have a pocket of four people who aren't contributing to personnel policy in any way but are taking salary.' They also echoed the concerns about recordkeeping and suggested the situation with Long and his associates is even more troubling given the Trump administration's supposed commitment to government efficiency. 'What are these people adding? Why are the American taxpayers paying for him and these three people? What are the taxpayers getting for this time that they have purchased? It doesn't look like anything and that's incredibly disturbing,' the former employee said, adding, 'Talk about 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' What is going on at the government personnel agency? … We always talk about the tone being set, so if this is happening at the personnel agency, what else is happening?'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
A cohort of Senate Republicans already troubled by the House GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" found a common ally in Elon Musk, who again trashed the legislation on Tuesday. Musk, who just exited his tenure as Trump's efficiency bloodhound leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) last week, doubled down on his position that the House's reconciliation package was an "abomination." White House Stands By Tax Bill After Musk Calls It A 'Disgusting Abomination' "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk said on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," he continued. "You know it." Senate Republicans have already vowed to make changes to the colossal bill, which includes the president's desires on tax, energy, immigration, defense and national debt policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., lauded Musk for his work with DOGE, but noted that the Senate GOP and the tech-billionaire had "a difference of opinion." Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' He didn't believe that Musk's comments would derail the bill entirely in the upper chamber, either. Thune has pledged to get the bill to the president's desk by Independence Day. "The legislation, as passed by the House, can be approved here in the Senate, can be strengthened in the Senate, in a number of ways," Thune said. "We intend to do that, but when it's all said and done, we'll send it back to the House and hope that they can pass it and put it on the president's desk." Still, fractures have emerged among lawmakers, with some viewing the bill through the same lens as Musk. "Well, he has some of the same skepticism I have, you know, towards the big, beautiful bill," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' Paul has vowed not to support the bill as is without a serious overhaul to the legislation that would nix a $5 trillion increase to the nation's debt ceiling — a stance that has gotten him into hot water with Trump. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has similarly pledged not to support the bill unless much steeper spending cuts are achieved. The House's product includes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson would like to see a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would effectively amount to a roughly $6 trillion cut in spending. "I share his concerns," Johnson said of Musk. "I also appreciate what he and President Trump did with his DOGE effort." And Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fiscal hawk whose views are closely aligned with Johnson's, argued in response to the tech billionaire's social media post that "federal spending has become excessive." "The resulting inflation harms Americans and weaponizes government," Lee said on X. "The Senate can make this bill better. It must now do so." Other Senate Republicans, including those with outstanding concerns with the current legislation, were much less receptive to Musk's tirade against the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has remained steadfast in his position that he would not support the current Medicaid proposals in the House's bill, especially if they cut benefits to his constituents and people across the country. When asked his reaction to Musk's rant, he shrugged, "Well, he's entitled to his opinion, it's a free country." Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., who has expressed reservations on the contents of the megabill, was more blunt. "My reaction to that is just simply this — and y'all may like this or not like this — but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk," he article source: GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump asked Congress to claw back funding for PBS and NPR. What now?
America's two big public broadcasters, PBS and NPR, have 45 days to salvage their federal funding — starting now. On Tuesday, the Trump administration sent Congress a long-awaited request for lawmakers to cancel more than $1 billion in federal funds earmarked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that disburses taxpayer funds to local NPR and PBS stations across the country. The request, known as a 'rescission package,' starts a 45-day clock for Congress to either approve or ignore the proposal. Rescinding the funds only requires a simple majority, which means in this case that no Democratic votes are needed. However, Republicans only have slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and public media executives are cautiously hopeful that they can convince some Republican moderates to ignore the White House's proposal, thereby killing it. White House budget director Russ Vought said on Fox News Tuesday afternoon that the House will be 'putting this on the floor next week.' Vought also warned, 'If it doesn't pass, we have to then release the funds and it has to be spent.' The 45-day period will end on July 18. Until then, PBS and NPR officials will be lobbying lawmakers and counting votes. NPR said its lobbying efforts will start on the House side, 'where we expect the memo to be first taken up,' CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement. 'During this fight we will demonstrate our value to Congress, as we have over the last 50 years, in providing educational, enriching programs and critical services to all Americans every day for free,' PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in a separate statement. The funds being targeted now were allocated by the Republican-controlled Congress in a bill that Trump signed into law earlier this spring but haven't been spent yet because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is budgeted two years in advance. Trump, tapping into long-held conservative beliefs that NPR and PBS are biased in favor of liberals, is now trying to strip away the future funding and score a political win. Kerger said it would be a loss for the public at large. 'The proposed rescissions would have a devastating impact on PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities,' she said, 'particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets. Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis.' The Trump White House has targeted public media on multiple fronts in recent weeks. The president signed an executive order in early May directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding PBS and NPR. He also tried to fire three of the corporation's board members. The corporation has essentially ignored him, however, because it is a private nonprofit entity set up by Congress and historically insulated from presidential interference. The entity has filed suit with the hopes that a federal court will affirm its independence. Both NPR and PBS have also filed separate lawsuits accusing the administration of violating the First Amendment. All three cases have been assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Furthermore, the Federal Communications Commission is conducting a probe into NPR and PBS member stations, citing concerns that public media underwriting messages may be violating federal law. But of all the attempts to target public media this year, Tuesday's proposal stands out. 'This rescission proposal is the most serious threat ever faced by public broadcasting,' Maher wrote in her statement. 'We urge Congress to act in the interest of their constituents and save public broadcasting.'
