Amid a surge in fraud powered by artificial intelligence, the FBI has urged households to establish a secret word or phrase with family members to verify identities when someone claiming to be a relative requests urgent financial help or other sensitive actions. This advisory comes as criminals increasingly rely on voice-cloning technology to imitate loved ones in distress, creating highly convincing scenarios that are difficult to debunk through tone alone. The recommendation is part of a broader set of security guidance aimed at countering fraud operations that use generative AI to automate and scale deception. By introducing a simple, confidential verifier, families can create a practical barrier against attackers who attempt to exploit urgency and fear in crisis situations.
The FBI’s secret word guidance: what it means and how to implement
The FBI’s public service announcement, designated I-120324-PSA, clearly advocates for families to create a shared secret word or phrase that can be used to confirm a loved one’s identity under suspicious circumstances. The concept is straightforward: when someone unexpected calls or messages, family members can ask a prearranged question and expect a specific response that only trusted relatives would know. The announcement also provides examples of possible phrases, such as “The sparrow flies at midnight,” or joking variants like “Greg is the king of burritos,” or even “flibbertigibbet.” Importantly, the bureau cautions that while these examples illustrate the idea, the actual secret should be unique and kept confidential; it should not be the same as the phrases listed publicly so that it remains effective in practice.
Beyond simply having a secret word, the FBI emphasizes listening for subtler signals during unexpected communications. In particular, it urges the public to pay careful attention to the tone, cadence, and word choices used by the caller who is purporting to be a family member. The underlying concern is that criminals now leverage AI-generated audio to produce realistic-sounding clips of relatives pleading for urgent financial help or ransom payments. The advice frames the secret word as one line of defense in a broader strategy that combines knowledge-based verification with heightened skepticism during high-pressure requests.
The FBI’s guidance fits into a larger lifecycle of security recommendations about how criminal networks have integrated generative AI into fraud operations. The agency has noted that such technology can be used to create realistic voice clones, which can be deployed to manipulate individuals into transferring funds or sharing sensitive information. The public service announcement thus aligns with other disclosures about AI-enabled fraud, underscoring the reality that voice synthesis is now a practical tool for criminals rather than a hypothetical risk. The emphasis on verification, along with awareness of linguistic and auditory cues, reflects a multi-layered approach intended to reduce susceptibility to impersonation.
Crucially, the FBI acknowledges that the risk of voice cloning tends to be higher for people whose voices are publicly accessible. When someone has extensive public exposure—through podcasts, interviews, or other media—fraudsters may have more material to model and imitate. Conversely, individuals who maintain a lower public profile are less likely to have voice samples readily available for cloning. This nuance helps explain why the guidance highlights simple, personal verification methods rather than solely relying on technology to detect deepfakes, which may not be universally reliable in urgent, emotionally charged moments.
The advisory’s scope also extends beyond voice to other AI-assisted deception. The FBI details how criminals use AI to generate convincing profile photos, forged identification documents, and chatbot-driven interfaces embedded in fraudulent websites. These tools enable attackers to automate parts of their schemes while reducing the telltale signs of human involvement—such as awkward phrasing or imperfect imagery—that might previously have betrayed a scam. Keeping these factors in mind, families can see the secret word as one component of a broader defensive framework that includes skepticism, verification through known channels, and careful scrutiny of online footprints.
In sum, the FBI’s secret word guidance is a practical, low-cost, user-centric measure that complements other protective steps. The core idea is to transform a moment of potential danger into a moment of verification. This approach recognises that high-tech fraud can be powered by simple human interaction, and that a trusted word shared within a family can create a quick, reliable check against unauthorized requests. While it is not a foolproof shield, it represents a tangible way to raise the barriers against AI-augmented deception without requiring specialized equipment or expensive solutions.
How AI voice cloning reshapes fraud schemes
Advances in AI-driven voice synthesis have lowered the barriers to producing highly convincing audio impersonations. Criminal actors can now generate voice clips that mimic real relatives with remarkable fidelity, enabling them to assert urgent needs or criminal demands in a way that feels authentic to the listener. The technology’s accessibility means more players can deploy it, including groups that previously relied on traditional social-engineering techniques. The result is a broader threat landscape in which family-targeted scams can unfold rapidly and convincingly.
Voice cloning operates on a simple premise: a few samples of a person’s voice—often drawn from public appearances, podcasts, interviews, or other recordings—can be fed into a generative model to produce new audio that sounds like the real speaker. Attackers then weave these synthesized clips into elaborate narratives that press victims to act quickly, typically by transferring money or relinquishing sensitive information before verification can occur. The urgency embedded in these scripts is designed to trigger emotional responses—fear, guilt, or desperation—while the attacker maintains a calm, persuasive demeanor.
The expanding role of AI in fraud is not limited to voice alterations alone. Generative AI can also fabricate realistic profile photographs, supporter credentials, and fully realized identification documents. Fraudsters can deploy these elements to lend credibility to their phishing sites or social-media personas, lowering the perceived risk for victims who encounter what looks like legitimate contact or legitimate documents. In many cases, these synthetic components work in concert: a believable voice, a credible-looking image, and a convincing online presence combine to produce a seamless, multi-layered deception that is harder for victims to resist.
A related dynamic is the way AI enables automation at scale. Previously, scammers relied on manual formats and limited outreach. Now, AI-driven tools allow operators to generate thousands of tailored messages, voices, and profiles with relatively little human oversight. This automation expands the reach of fraudulent campaigns while reducing the time required to create each individual scam, increasing the probability of capturing a victim’s attention and exploiting a moment of weakness. The net effect is a fraud ecosystem that can move faster and appear more credible than before, particularly to individuals who are not accustomed to dealing with high-tech manipulation.
Despite the potential sophistication of AI-generated impersonations, it is important to note that a substantial portion of successful AI-fueled fraud still depends on human factors. In many cases, the risk remains tied to social engineering, cognitive biases, and the victim’s susceptibility to urgency rather than to flawless technical execution alone. That is why simple verification measures—such as a secret word shared within a trusted circle—continue to play a crucial role. They add a human-layer defense that technology alone cannot guarantee, preserving a buffer against the most basic forms of manipulation even when an attacker has access to convincing synthetic media.
Beyond voice: AI-generated photos, IDs, and chatbots in scams
The misuse of AI in fraud extends well beyond cloning a voice. Modern attackers can now craft convincing profile photos, generate forged identification documents, and embed AI-driven chatbots on fraudulent websites, all designed to mimic legitimate entities and to appear trustworthy at a glance. This multi-faceted approach lets scammers present a more cohesive and credible front, which can significantly reduce skepticism from potential victims who encounter a cohesive digital persona rather than isolated elements of deception.
Technical advances have made these deceptive assets more accessible and harder to distinguish from authentic material. For instance, AI-generated portraits can be tailored to appear as realistic, individual profiles with plausible backstories, which scammers can use to seed social-engineering campaigns on social networks or dating apps. Similarly, AI-constructed identification documents—such as driver’s licenses or official IDs—can be created to corroborate a scammer’s claimed identity, enabling fraudulent applications or account takeovers that look legitimate enough to bypass casual scrutiny.
In tandem with these developments, AI-powered chatbots are increasingly deployed to answer questions, guide victims through a fake process, or simulate authentic customer-support experiences on counterfeit sites. The chats can be crafted to simulate confidence, to provide plausible responses to inquiries, and to maintain a consistent narrative across multiple touchpoints. This automation makes it easier for attackers to maintain ongoing interactions with victims, which can reinforce trust and reduce the likelihood that someone will disengage or pause for extra verification.
The overarching takeaway is that the threat landscape is expanding from a single technique to an integrated suite of AI-enabled tools. Fraudsters can present a convincing package—an authentic-sounding voice, a credible image, a plausible document, and a responsive chatbot—that collectively minimize suspicion and maximize the chance that a target will comply with a request. In response, defensive measures must be equally multi-layered. Verification routines, digital hygiene practices, and cautious behavior when confronted with unexpected or urgent requests are essential to reducing risk. The secret word concept remains an important human-centered countermeasure that complements these other defenses by introducing a reliable, private checkpoint that attackers cannot easily replicate through synthetic media alone.
Privacy and public presence: reducing risk online
A recurring theme in the security guidance around AI-enabled fraud is how information about a person’s voice and appearance—often captured from public or semi-public sources—can become a valuable asset for attackers. The FBI has long recommended prudent privacy practices to hinder criminals’ ability to harvest voice samples and images from the open web. Central to these recommendations is the idea of limiting public exposure: keeping social media accounts private, reducing the number of publicly accessible voice recordings or images, and limiting the visibility of one’s presence to known and trusted connections. The logic is straightforward: if fewer public footprints exist that could be mined by adversaries, then the pool of usable material for cloning or fabricating deceptive assets shrinks, thereby reducing the risk of successful impersonation.
Practical privacy measures include tightening privacy settings on social networks, restricting follower lists to verified acquaintances, and being mindful of what is shared in public forums or interviews. It also involves exercise of caution when someone reaches out with an unexpected request that appears urgent or emotionally charged. In such moments, verifying identity through an independent channel—such as calling a known phone number listed in an official directory or speaking with a family member through a previously established contact method—can be a crucial step in preventing a scam from advancing. The broader message is that privacy is not about concealing one’s life entirely, but about controlling the accessibility of information that could be exploited by criminals using AI technologies.
Another facet of risk management is education and awareness. Families can benefit from discussing AI-driven fraud scenarios, practicing verification conversations, and establishing a culture of healthy skepticism in moments of crisis. This involves training family members to pause, assess, and confirm critical details before acting, rather than reacting impulsively to a perceived emergency. Over time, such practices can become second nature, reducing the likelihood that a high-pressure request becomes a costly mistake. The objective is not to promote paranoia but to cultivate a practical habit of cautious engagement with unfamiliar or urgent communications.
Ultimately, privacy-friendly habits and secure communication norms lay the groundwork for more effective use of protection tools like secret words. When individuals combine careful digital hygiene with a trusted verification mechanism, they create a layered defense that is harder for attackers to bypass. The FBI’s guidance aligns with a broader security philosophy: empower the public with simple, actionable practices that can be applied quickly in real-world situations, while staying mindful of how AI capabilities are evolving and how scammers adapt to new tools.
The secret word’s origin and diffusion in AI circles
The concept of a “secret word” as a means of verifying identity in an age dominated by AI-driven impersonation traces its more visible origins to discussions within the AI and security communities in 2023. A notable early contributor to the conversation was an AI developer who introduced the idea on social media, suggesting that establishing a word or short phrase could serve as a practical “proof of humanity” that trusted contacts could request if there were ever any doubt about the person on the other end of a call or message. The core insight was simple: a unique, prearranged expression known only to a narrow circle of trusted people can function as a direct, human-based check against a pre-recorded deepfake or a cloned voice.
As the concept circulated, coverage in major outlets highlighted the potential for a low-cost, accessible defense against sophisticated AI impersonation. Journalists and researchers noted that the approach is attractive precisely because it is inexpensive, easy to implement, and does not depend on specialized technologies or warning signs that may be difficult to discern in high-stress moments. The articles emphasized that while the approach cannot guarantee foolproof protection, it provides a practical, time-tested method that can augment other precautions, especially for households without access to advanced anti-fraud tools.
The conversation quickly broadened to acknowledge the broader AI fraud ecosystem. Reporters cited examples of how the idea gained traction within AI research and security communities, recognizing its appeal as a simple, human-centric verification step. The idea’s appeal lies in its portability: a single secret word can be used across different contexts and remains under the control of trusted relationships, rather than being embedded in a technological system that could fail or be bypassed. The historical resonance with passwords—an ancient method of identity verification—also highlighted a philosophical continuity: even as technology evolves, some foundational security practices endure because they leverage human memory and trust.
Subsequent reporting connected the secret word concept to real-world applications and policy discussions. Observers noted that discussions around this approach intersect with broader debates about privacy, public exposure, and how individuals can protect themselves in an age of AI-generated deception. The consensus in many circles was that while no single measure will eliminate risk, a simple, confidential phrase can play a meaningful role in a layered defense strategy. The diffusion of the idea across media and security communities underscored its potential as a practical, scalable precaution for families and small organizations seeking accessible ways to reduce susceptibility to voice-based fraud.
Practical steps for families: choosing, using, and maintaining a secret word
To translate the FBI’s guidance into everyday safety, families can adopt a structured approach to selecting and using a secret word or phrase. The core recommendation is to create a unique, private expression that is known only to trusted members of the household or close relatives. This shared secret should be memorable enough for the intended users but difficult for outsiders to guess or reconstruct from public information. When implementing this strategy, families should consider several practical guidelines to ensure the word’s effectiveness and longevity.
First, choose a secret that is distinctive and not easily guessable from common knowledge about the household. Avoid using generic phrases, personal data readily available online, or words that could be discovered through casual conversation. Instead, opt for a sentence or combination of words with unusual order or a specific context known only to the family. For example, phrases with a whimsical or idiosyncratic structure can be helpful, provided they remain private. While the examples offered by the FBI—such as “The sparrow flies at midnight,” “Greg is the king of burritos,” or “flibbertigibbet”—illustrate the concept, the actual secret should be kept confidential and not reused in public domains.
Second, establish clear protocols for when and how the secret word should be used. This includes deciding which family members are authorized to request or respond to verification inquiries and under what circumstances. It may also entail a quick confirmatory step, such as contacting a known, independent channel to verify the caller’s identity before complying with requests. The protocol should emphasize calm, deliberate actions rather than impulsive reactions driven by fear or urgency. In crisis scenarios, a standard practice could involve requesting the secret phrase and then initiating a separate confirmation through a trusted contact list or a pre-agreed callback procedure.
Third, consider implementing a rotation or periodic update mechanism for the secret word. While a password-like system may offer ongoing protection, changing the secret on a regular basis — or after a potential exposure — can further minimize risk. A rotation policy should balance security benefits with the practicality of memorization and consistent usage across family members. It is important to communicate any changes promptly to all relevant relatives so that the verification process remains smooth and effective during emergencies.
Fourth, educate all participants about the limitations of the method. The secret word is a defensive measure, not a guaranteed safeguard. Victims should understand that even with a prearranged phrase, other aspects of a scam may still require careful skepticism and verification. For example, attackers might attempt to exploit different trust cues, financial pressurization tactics, or manipulated documents. The secret word should be viewed as part of a broader toolkit that includes verifying identities through established channels, analyzing the plausibility of requests, and maintaining healthy skepticism toward unusual demands, especially when they involve money or sensitive information.
Fifth, pair the secret word with additional verification steps. A robust approach can combine the secret word with two-factor or multi-channel verification. This could include asking for a second, independent identifier known only to trusted relatives, or initiating a callback to a trusted phone number or contact method that has been previously tested and documented. By layering verification approaches, households can reduce the likelihood that a single point of failure—such as a successful voice clone—will lead to a fraudulent outcome.
Finally, implement practical safeguards to reinforce the verification process. These can include limiting the dissemination of voice recordings and images online, maintaining privacy settings on social platforms, and encouraging family members to discuss AI-driven scams openly. In addition, encourage family members to pause and confirm the legitimacy of any sudden, emotionally charged request. Education, practice, and consistent use of the secret word, combined with established verification channels, form a solid, multi-faceted defense against AI-augmented impersonation.
Looking ahead: risk, resilience, and policy considerations
The emergence of AI-enhanced fraud has put a spotlight on the need for ongoing risk assessment, resilient household practices, and thoughtful policy discussions. As technology evolves, so do the strategies employed by criminals, who continually adapt to circumvent conventional safeguards. This dynamic creates a pressure-filled environment in which simple, human-centric preventive measures—like a secret word—gain renewed relevance precisely because they do not rely on fast-changing technology to function.
From a policy perspective, there is growing interest in balancing innovation with consumer protection. Public-sector guidance and private-sector tools are increasingly designed to help individuals and organizations recognize, respond to, and recover from AI-driven deception. This includes improving public awareness campaigns, refining verification heuristics, and promoting digital literacy that emphasizes critical thinking in high-stakes communications. While such policy efforts are essential, they must be complemented by practical, everyday actions that people can adopt without requiring specialized expertise. The secret word concept embodies this principle: it is a straightforward, accessible practice that can be taught and practiced across households, potentially reducing the success rate of voice-based fraud.
For families, the key takeaway is proactive preparation. The only reliable defense against increasingly realistic AI impersonations is a combination of skepticism, verification, and private verification methods that stay with you in moments of real risk. As AI technologies advance and scammers refine their approaches, communities should remain vigilant and adaptive, continually refining security habits and ensuring that trusted networks remain robust and reliable. The broader community of security researchers, policymakers, and consumer advocates will also play a role in highlighting effective countermeasures and sharing practical guidance that aligns with real-world needs.
Conclusion
In an era where artificial intelligence can mimic voices, faces, and documents with alarming realism, simple, human-centered safeguards offer tangible value. The FBI’s call to establish a secret word or phrase with family members provides a concrete, accessible tool for verifying identity when confronted with potentially fraudulent, AI-generated impersonations. While no single measure can eliminate risk, this approach complements broader protective practices—such as heightened privacy online, careful verification through independent channels, and a culture of prudent skepticism in crisis moments.
The broader fraud landscape will continue to evolve as AI technologies advance, expanding into voice synthesis, realistic imagery, and automated online interactions. Yet the enduring lesson remains that human judgment and trusted relationships are powerful lines of defense. By adopting practical steps to choose and maintain a secret word, by tightening privacy settings, and by reinforcing verification routines with multiple channels, families can reduce their exposure to AI-enabled scams. The secret word is not a silver bullet, but when integrated into a comprehensive defense strategy, it serves as a clear, memorable signal of trusted identity—one that remains relevant in a high-technology world where deception is increasingly capable and ubiquitous.
