Unfortunately, my mother-in-law fell for one these scams. She's not stupid, but in her eighties and very far from being tech savvy. As a result, she's an easy target. I suspect many victims are elderly.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FTC Sending Refund Checks to People Tricked by Tech Support Scams
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The article says the scam was for a minimum of $69, and the payout was $30. Maybe you got your wish and you just don't realise it
Yeah, if your average 35 year old middle class individual falls for it, fine. If a 85 year old non-tech savvy grandparent falls for it, though, then you are taking advantage of people without the capability to protect themselves. I suspect the latter is the largest source of people that fell for this scam.
[automerge]1582677589[/automerge]
Not quite true. Us Boomers are suspicious of someone who, say, comes door to door selling something. There were many scams perpetrated that way. But we use the computer to get news, check our bank accounts, order airline tickets. We have learned to trust our computers somewhat, and it is easy to let one's guard down.
Last edited:
My 66 year old mom is not tech savvy at all either but she doesn't fall for scams because she just calls me for tech support. It helps that she doesn't speak or read English so these scams have to be in our native language for even a slight chance for her to fall for it.
When scams like these primarily target seniors, your answer is Darwinism? Niiiiiiiice.
How to do it wrong ...
Education is far more important than filling the bucket up every time you run out. Make people "aware" of what NOT to do, rather than going along for ride, which is what the FTC is doing. This is as bad as Trump spitting the dummy with bad language when he hates a country.
Education is far more important than filling the bucket up every time you run out. Make people "aware" of what NOT to do, rather than going along for ride, which is what the FTC is doing. This is as bad as Trump spitting the dummy with bad language when he hates a country.
Actually I wasn't kidding about the "newbie" thing. Very helpful information. MUCH more helpful than the person at 888-884-0006.
Not everyone is ignorant when it comes to a pop-up that says the computer needs service to remove malware. Some people are using a PC, not a Mac, and they may not be tech savvy.
So if my brother asks me about the message and proceeds anyway to follow the instructions, he should learn not to trust everything that pops up on his computer. He ended up taking his PC to BestBuy and may have replaced his hard drive.
"Click4Support representatives would convince people into providing them with remote access to their computers..."
advice
oh man watch out for allowing someone remote access your cpu
advice
oh man watch out for allowing someone remote access your cpu
Social Security called me yesterday (I'm retired). A legal complaint has been made against both my social security number and my driver's license number. Social Security is going to delete my Social Security number if I don't call this phone number.....
I didn't call.
I didn't call.
I don't think anyone "deserves" criminal behavior directed at them, but I'm glad to see the org's resources seized and used for compensation.
You didn't think either of these statements through before commenting did you?
Last edited:
What kind of weird dystopia do some of you commentors think we should live in?!
Consumer protection laws exist for extremely good reasons.
No one is getting rich by having a small portion of money returned to them that they were scammed out of.
Vulnerable people don't deserve to have worse things happen to them just because they weren't able to protect themselves from lying criminals.
Even very smart skeptical people can make mistakes and fall for a scam if they're in a moment when their guard isn't up 100%, like if you had just had a couple of beers.
The percent of the federal budget spent on things that *actually* help the people is tiny, it shouldn't even enter your radar. And that's besides the point, since the money being paid out came from the scammer companies, not the government.
-- When the good guys succeed at protecting the innocent, how about we cheer instead of boo?
Consumer protection laws exist for extremely good reasons.
No one is getting rich by having a small portion of money returned to them that they were scammed out of.
Vulnerable people don't deserve to have worse things happen to them just because they weren't able to protect themselves from lying criminals.
Even very smart skeptical people can make mistakes and fall for a scam if they're in a moment when their guard isn't up 100%, like if you had just had a couple of beers.
The percent of the federal budget spent on things that *actually* help the people is tiny, it shouldn't even enter your radar. And that's besides the point, since the money being paid out came from the scammer companies, not the government.
-- When the good guys succeed at protecting the innocent, how about we cheer instead of boo?
That's the other problem....even on the rare occasion when mom-in-law does call to ask for help, you can't understand what the problem is. She doesn't grasp the overall context that anchors UI metaphors (folders, files, windows, etc) so it's possible to understand what she's trying to accomplish, and this gets her into trouble. And especially when she's browsing the Web--to her, there's no difference between content and ad-sponsored content, she just starts clicking around and following links, regardless of context.
Yes, if it were up to me, she wouldn't be using a computer at all but....you try telling that to my mother in law (or wife).