Can you hear me? (alleged telephone scam)

An in‑depth look at the “Can you hear me?” hoax, its origins, how it spread, and why it still matters for consumers and public‑sector communicators.

Table of Contents

1. [What the “Can you hear me?” Call Is (and Isn’t)](#what-it-is)
2. [Chronology: From First Rumors to Ongoing References](#chronology)
3. [The Mechanics Behind the Call](#mechanics)
4. [Government Agencies and the Accidental Amplification of the Hoax](#government)
5. [Security Experts Weigh In: Automated Dialers, Not Fraudsters](#experts)
6. [Why the Hoax Persists in the Public Consciousness](#persistence)
7. [Comparing the “Can you hear me?” Hoax to Other Telephone Scams](#comparison)
8. [Implications for Consumer Trust and Digital Literacy](#implications)
9. [Relevance to Apiary’s Mission and Digital Outreach](#apiary)
10. [Conclusion: Lessons Learned](#conclusion)
11. [FAQ](#faq)

<a name="what-it-is"></a>

1. What the “Can you hear me?” Call Is (and Isn’t)

The phrase “Can you hear me?” became the centerpiece of an alleged telephone scam that surfaced on social media and in informal news circles beginning in 2017. The purported scam was described as a simple question asked by an unknown caller, sometimes framed as a “say ‘yes’” trick: the caller would ask “Can you hear me?” and, if the recipient answered “yes,” the scammer would allegedly have a pre‑written script to extract personal or financial information.

Key factual points from authoritative sources:

• No documented victims – The Better Business Bureau (BBB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) have all reported that there is no record of anyone having ever been defrauded by this alleged scheme.
• Classified as an internet hoax – While some outlets labeled it a telephone scam, many fact‑checking organizations have categorized it as an internet hoax because of the lack of concrete evidence of fraud.
• Alternative name – The phenomenon is also known as the “say ‘yes’ scam.”

In short, the “Can you hear me?” call is not a verified fraud operation; rather, it is a rumor that has been repeated enough to gain a veneer of credibility.

<a name="chronology"></a>

2. Chronology: From First Rumors to Ongoing References

2017 – The Spark

• Initial circulation – The first wave of reports about the “Can you hear me?” call emerged in the United States and Canada during 2017. Social media posts, community forums, and local news segments began warning readers that a simple “yes” could trigger a scam.

2018‑2020 – Media Echoes

• Continued coverage – Even after the initial burst, reports persisted into the 2020s. Articles and blog posts continued to repeat the warning, often without citing a specific source or case study.

2021‑2023 – Government Statements

• Unintended credibility – Various government entities, including police departments and state financial agencies, sometimes issued public notices about the alleged scam, treating it as factual. These statements unintentionally reinforced the perception that the threat was real.

2024‑Present – Fact‑Checking Era

• Expert clarification – Consumer‑protection agencies and security experts have increasingly clarified that the “Can you hear me?” call is not linked to any documented financial fraud. The narrative has shifted from alarm to skepticism, though the hoax still appears in occasional social‑media warnings.

<a name="mechanics"></a>

3. The Mechanics Behind the Call

Although the hoax lacks a verified fraud component, security experts have examined the technical reality of the calls that people report hearing.

Automated Dialer Theory

• Telemarketing verification – Experts suggest that the calls are likely generated by an automated dialer employed by a telemarketing firm. The purpose of such a dialer is to confirm the authenticity of telephone numbers on the firm’s calling list.
• No malicious intent – In this scenario, the caller’s question (“Can you hear me?”) is simply a scripted prompt to elicit a response that confirms the line is active. The system records the response and flags the number as valid for future outreach.
• Absence of data theft – Because the primary goal is verification rather than extraction of personal data, there is no evidence that any personal or financial information was solicited or captured during these calls.

Why the Script Looks Suspicious

• Human‑like phrasing – Automated systems often use natural‑language prompts to increase answer rates. “Can you hear me?” is a straightforward, conversational phrase that can be misinterpreted as a prelude to a scam.
• Misinterpretation through context – When the call appears out of the blue, recipients may assume a malicious motive, especially if they have recently heard warnings about “yes” scams.

<a name="government"></a>

4. Government Agencies and the Accidental Amplification of the Hoax

Public‑sector communication plays a crucial role in shaping how citizens perceive threats. In the case of the “Can you hear me?” hoax, government agencies unintentionally contributed to its credibility:

• Police department alerts – Some local police departments posted warnings about the alleged scam on their websites or social‑media channels, treating the rumor as a verified threat.
• State financial agency notices – State consumer‑protection offices occasionally released bulletins that listed the “Can you hear me?” call alongside genuine scams (e.g., IRS impersonation, tech‑support fraud).

These notices, while well‑intentioned, lacked corroborating evidence and therefore lent authority to a narrative that had not been substantiated by any investigative body. The result was a feedback loop: the more official the warning, the more the public believed the scam existed, which in turn prompted more warnings.

<a name="experts"></a>

5. Security Experts Weigh In: Automated Dialers, Not Fraudsters

When the hoax resurfaced in the early 2020s, consumer‑protection experts stepped forward to explain the technical side:

• Dialer verification explained – Specialists described how large‑scale telemarketing operations use predictive or auto‑dialing software to test whether a number is answered by a human. A simple question like “Can you hear me?” is an efficient way to capture a verbal confirmation.
• No financial motive identified – Unlike classic telephone fraud—such as “grandparent scams,” “IRS impersonation,” or “tech‑support scams”—the “Can you hear me?” call does not involve a request for money, account numbers, or personal identifiers.
• Public education focus – Experts emphasized that the most effective response is education: informing the public that a brief “yes” response does not automatically open the door to fraud, and encouraging people to verify the identity of any caller before sharing sensitive information.

<a name="persistence"></a>

6. Why the Hoax Persists in the Public Consciousness

Even after authoritative agencies have debunked the claim, the “Can you hear me?” narrative continues to appear in online discussions. Several factors explain this persistence:

Understanding these dynamics helps consumer‑education campaigns target the underlying psychology rather than merely presenting facts.

<a name="comparison"></a>

7. Comparing the “Can you hear me?” Hoax to Other Telephone Scams

The table underscores that, unlike established fraud schemes, the “Can you hear me?” call lacks a financial exploitation component and documented victimization, making it fundamentally different in both impact and response strategy.

<a name="implications"></a>

8. Implications for Consumer Trust and Digital Literacy

Even hoaxes can erode trust in legitimate communications. When consumers repeatedly encounter warnings—some unfounded—they may:

1. Dismiss genuine alerts – Over‑exposure to false warnings can lead to “warning fatigue,” causing people to ignore real scam warnings.
2. Mistrust telemarketing verification – Businesses that rely on legitimate verification calls may be perceived as malicious.
3. Adopt overly cautious behavior – Some individuals may refuse to answer any unknown call, potentially missing important notifications (e.g., medical appointments, school alerts).

Therefore, digital literacy programs must balance the need to alert the public with the responsibility to verify the credibility of each warning. Teaching consumers to check sources (BBB, FTC, CFA) and to look for documented case studies before reacting can reduce unnecessary panic.

<a name="apiary"></a>

9. Relevance to Apiary’s Mission and Digital Outreach

Apiary’s core focus is bee conservation and the development of self‑governing AI agents that assist in environmental stewardship. While the “Can you hear me?” hoax is unrelated to bees, the incident offers a valuable lesson for any organization that relies on public communication:

• Clear, evidence‑based messaging – Just as Apiary must provide accurate data about pollinator health, it should also ensure that any alerts about potential threats (e.g., pesticide misuse, illegal hive removal) are backed by verifiable evidence.
• Avoiding amplification of unverified claims – When an AI agent or a community volunteer shares a warning, the platform should incorporate a verification step, mirroring the best practices recommended by consumer‑protection agencies.
• Building trust through transparency – By openly acknowledging uncertainties and providing sources, Apiary can maintain credibility, a principle that applies equally to wildlife advocacy and consumer‑protection communication.

In short, the hoax underscores the importance of rigorous fact‑checking, a practice that strengthens both consumer protection and environmental advocacy.

<a name="conclusion"></a>

10. Conclusion: Lessons Learned

The “Can you hear me?” narrative illustrates how a simple question can evolve into a nationwide warning without any documented harm. Key takeaways include:

• No evidence of fraud – The BBB, FTC, and CFA confirm that no one has been defrauded by this alleged scam.
• Likely a benign verification call – Security experts attribute the calls to automated dialers used for telephone‑number validation, not to malicious actors.
• Government messaging can unintentionally legitimize hoaxes – When official bodies repeat unverified warnings, they amplify the perception of risk.
• Public education must be nuanced – Combating hoaxes requires not only debunking false claims but also explaining the underlying mechanisms (e.g., automated dialers) so that citizens can assess future calls rationally.
• Trust is fragile – Repeated exposure to unsubstantiated alerts can erode confidence in genuine warnings, a risk that extends beyond consumer fraud to any field that relies on public outreach, including bee conservation.

By grounding future alerts in solid evidence and encouraging critical evaluation, we can protect both consumer confidence and environmental advocacy from the side effects of misinformation.

<a name="faq"></a>

FAQ

Is there any documented case of someone losing money to the “Can you hear me?” scam? No. The Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Federation of America have all reported that there is no record of anyone having ever been defrauded by this alleged telephone scam.

What is the most likely purpose of the “Can you hear me?” call? Security experts explain that the calls are probably generated by an automated dialer used by a telemarketing firm to verify that a telephone number is active, not to extract personal or financial information.

Why did some police departments and state agencies mention the hoax as if it were real? Government entities sometimes unknowingly contributed to the hoax’s credibility by reporting it to the public as factual, which gave the rumor an appearance of official validation despite the lack of evidence.

How does the “say ‘yes’” name relate to the alleged scam? The hoax is also known as the “say ‘yes’ scam” because the alleged script