TORTURING Scammers With 10,000 Viruses Live On CCTV!
Credibility score: 48/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "TORTURING Scammers With 10,000 Viruses Live On CCTV!" and rated it 48/100 for credibility (a BS score of 52/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-18. Its weakest claim — "Attacked three call centers to save victims — frames vigilante action as pure rescue mission" — scored 45/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 24 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 24 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 22 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Teaser montage: viruses, old lady, three call centers — preview of revenge plot — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
Highlight reel drops the $10k victim and 10,000 viruses in 30 seconds flat — sets up the whole revenge fantasy before the video even starts.
Why this score: The first 30 seconds are a rapid-fire montage of the scam, the victim, the virus upload, and the webcam cover moment. It's not presenting individual claims to evaluate — it's deliberately teasing the dramatic payoff to hook viewers before any actual evidence or process is shown.
Original quote: “This is a scam call center in India. And right now, they're on the phone with an old lady trying to steal $10,000. But what they don't know is that I'm secretly in the background uploading 10,000 viruses to their computer. Well, cuz I'm thinking that I can destroy them. Do you think I can destroy…”
Attacked three call centers to save victims — frames vigilante action as pure rescue mission — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:30
Opens with 'saving people' framing — turns hacking into moral crusade without mentioning legality.
Why this score: By leading with 'sole purpose of saving people,' the speaker sets up the entire operation as unambiguously heroic. This emotional framing bypasses any discussion of whether breaking into call centers is legal, proportionate, or risks collateral damage to non-scammers.
Original quote: “of three call centers that we attacked in this video with the sole purpose of saving people just like this lady Rachel”
Justifies mass virus attack as 'avenge' — revenge framing — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 3:11
Uses 'avenge' and 'playing dirty' to turn hacking into vigilante justice narrative.
Why this score: Emotional language reframes unauthorized access and virus deployment as moral payback rather than discussing legal or technical boundaries.
Original quote: “These scammers were playing dirty, and we wanted to avenge Rachel and pretty much everyone else they've already heard.”
Frames one save as not enough — emotional escalation setup — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 3:39
Dismisses stopping one scam as 'not enough' to justify bigger revenge plot.
Why this score: Creates moral pressure by implying that helping one victim is insufficient, pushing the audience toward accepting more extreme actions like deploying viruses.
Original quote: “Now, thankfully, we stopped that call in time and made sure Rachel didn't lose a single dollar, but saving one person wasn't enough.”
Claims secret CCTV access — confidence without proof shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:45
States total control over CCTV like it's routine — zero evidence presented on screen.
Why this score: High certainty language ('I'm actually secretly... gaining access') without showing any technical steps or confirming the cameras are actually visible.
Original quote: “Now, while the scammer thinks he's connecting to me, I'm actually secretly in the background reversing the remote connection to the scammer's computer and gaining access to their CCTV security cameras.”
Calls entire banking page a lie — loaded emotional framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:47
Slaps 'everything was a lie' on a phone call — emotional button before any details.
Why this score: Uses absolute language ('everything they told you was a lie') to create instant outrage and trust in the narrator rather than presenting evidence of the specific scam tactics first.
Original quote: “Everything they told you was a lie. The banking page and everything. Do not withdraw $19,000 from the bank. It's a scam.”
Claims multiple successful infiltrations — no verification offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:12
Says 'infiltrated two other call centers' with total certainty — nothing shown to back it.
Why this score: Absolute claim of repeating the attack successfully across locations without any on-screen proof, logs, or confirmation that the other centers were actually compromised.
Original quote: “But hacking one call center wasn't enough. So, we repeated this attack three more times and infiltrated two other call centers located in the exact same city.”
Names specific scammer boss and merged companies — zero proof offered — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 4:31
Drops real-sounding names like they're verified — no evidence, just vibes
Why this score: Speaker presents 'Mr. Oshate' and two company names as established facts without any supporting documents, recordings, or third-party confirmation. The audience is expected to accept the identities and the 2025 merger at face value.
Original quote: “This is Mr. Oshate and he's the owner of Arvvada Technologies or Max Webb Solutions. Both of these call centers merged back in early 2025”
Claims exact location of scam HQ — again, no receipts shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:38
States precise building and street proximity like it's GPS-tracked fact
Why this score: Speaker asserts a specific physical address and operational details with total certainty while providing zero screenshots, maps, or corroborating evidence on screen. The confidence level far exceeds what's actually demonstrated.
Original quote: “They run their operation from the Tower in NOA just a few blocks away from the other call centers we're investigating in this video”
Claims successful network infection and upcoming laptop breach — pure assertion — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:46
Narrates the hack like it's already done and working — no technical proof given
Why this score: Speaker describes a specific sequence of remote access steps with complete certainty while showing only generic screen recordings. The timeline and success of the infection are presented as settled fact without logs, timestamps, or visible confirmation.
Original quote: “Ashe made a really big mistake and connected his laptop into the office network. But what he didn't know is that just a few days earlier, I infected this network. And now I'm about to infect his computer”
Says he can listen live and download thousands of calls — big flex, zero evidence — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 5:00
Claims total surveillance power with 'literally thousands' of recordings — still no proof shown
Why this score: Speaker escalates from accessing phone systems to full real-time monitoring and mass download capability in one breath. The scale is presented dramatically while the only evidence remains the same unverified screen footage.
Original quote: “Wait, I just got access to the phone systems. I was now able to see all of the phone systems. So, it's possible to listen into all of their scam calls in real time. And forget listening to their scam calls. Now, I can literally download thousands of their previous calls”
Anydesk is the only remote access company fighting scammers — zero proof offered — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 6:30
Calls them 'one of the few, if not the only' company taking real action — names zero competitors or data.
Why this score: Uses the 'only one doing something' framing without showing any comparison or evidence that others aren't also acting. The partnership itself becomes the proof instead of any actual metrics.
Original quote: “Anydesk doesn't tolerate any scamming or fraud on their platform. So, instead of ignoring the problem, they've partnered up with people like me to stop the scammers from misusing their tool and hurting innocent people.”
Anydesk is uniquely fighting scammers — presented as fact with no backup — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:37
Says 'actually one of the few, if not the only' like it's established — zero sources or examples given.
Why this score: High certainty language used for a claim that rests entirely on the speaker's assertion. The 'actually' tries to signal insider knowledge that isn't demonstrated.
Original quote: “They're actually one of the few, if not the only remote access company taking real action to shut down these scammers.”
Anydesk directly saved the victim from losing money — cause and effect presented as certain — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:47
Credits Anydesk with preventing the loss while skipping how the intervention actually worked or if the victim was already suspicious.
Why this score: Frames the tool as the hero that stopped the theft without showing the sequence — whether the scammers were already blocked, the call was disrupted earlier, or the victim had other warnings. The clean 'didn't lose a single penny' line leaves out the mechanics.
Original quote: “And just to recap, the scammers were in the middle of a scam phone call and they were about to steal the victim's money. But since Anidesk was there to stop the scam, the victim didn't lose a single penny.”
Urging viewers to support Anydesk — presented as moral duty rather than product plug — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 6:55
Tells audience to 'show Anesk some love' right after claiming they saved the victim — mixes gratitude with promotion.
Why this score: Uses the successful intervention as the setup for an emotional ask to support the brand. The 'legitimately doing great work' line blurs the line between documenting an event and selling the tool.
Original quote: “So guys, seriously, please show Anesk some love. They're legitimately doing great work with us and they're honestly taking a real stand against these scammers.”
Claims scam baiting videos are effective — treats relocation as proof of success — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
They moved next door or reset systems — still operating, just not on that CCTV anymore.
Why this score: The segment presents relocation and infrastructure reset as a win for scam baiting. It omits that the same people could simply continue operations elsewhere with minimal disruption, which undercuts the claim that the video itself stopped the scam.
Original quote: “scam baiting is effective... those scammers shut down and obviously weren't working out of that office anymore. So, scam baiting videos like this are effective.”
Frames any cost to scammers as automatically saving victims — no numbers given — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:43
Says 'saving a ton of victims' with zero data on how many were actually prevented from being scammed.
Why this score: The speaker jumps from 'we cost them time and money' to 'saving a ton of victims' without any evidence linking the two. Relocation cost is treated as automatic victim protection even though the scammers could resume activity quickly.
Original quote: “if our video caused them to relocate, reset all their computers and infrastructure, that cost them money and time... we're potentially saving a ton of victims. So, when you put it like that, it's a win.”
Lists aggressive takedown steps as straightforward success — no mention of legal limits or effectiveness — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:10
Presents banning, reporting, and nuking as clean victories without noting whether platforms actually acted or how long it lasted.
Why this score: The sequence is framed as decisive action that harms the scammers, but skips whether the bans stuck, whether phone systems were restored, or whether reported numbers were actually taken down by the platforms involved.
Original quote: “we banned all three scam call centers on any desk. Then, I reported all of their websites and phone numbers. Next, I nuked their entire phone system. And finally, we decided to refund as many victims as possible.”
Presents 10,000-virus package as a clean, one-command win — ignores legal and practical issues — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:25
Calls it 'nuke their entire PC' like it's consequence-free — no mention of legality or whether it actually stops the operation.
Why this score: The framing treats deploying malware as a simple technical victory. It leaves out whether this is legal, whether the scammers had backups, and whether the action would hold up if investigated by authorities.
Original quote: “shout out to my friend Mo who put together this little package that basically downloads 10,000 viruses from a server in Mumbai straight to this scammer's computer and with one command I can nuke their entire PC.”
Calling remote destruction of scammers' computers 'a good idea' — framing as justified revenge — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 10:30
Presents illegal hacking as morally correct without addressing legal risks or collateral damage.
Why this score: Uses 'good idea' to trigger audience approval of vigilante action. Skips discussion of whether destroying property is proportionate or legal.
Original quote: “I thought it would be a good idea to finally call them up and destroy their computers live on CCTV.”
Pretending to be a concerned grandson to gain trust — classic social engineering setup — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:49
Straightforward description of the impersonation tactic being used.
Why this score: Clearly states the role-play without exaggeration or loaded language. Just laying out the method.
Original quote: “I want to make sure you're securing my grandfather's computer.”
Directly telling the scammer the plan to destroy their system — drops the act mid-call — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:10
Plain statement of intent without softening language or false justification.
Why this score: Speaker simply announces the goal. No attempt to frame it as heroic or legal.
Original quote: “Well, because I'm thinking that I can destroy them. Do you think I can destroy your computer?”
Accusing the scammer of targeting 'me' personally while threatening destruction — emotional escalation — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 11:18
Frames the interaction as personal revenge rather than general anti-scam action.
Why this score: Switches from 'grandfather' persona to direct 'me' accusation to heighten moral outrage and justify the attack.
Original quote: “I'm about to destroy your computer, buddy. Why you scamming me, buddy?”
Frames remote access as 'destroying' the scammer's PC — loaded threat language — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Calls it 'destroy' and 'install 10,000 pieces of malware' like it's literal demolition — emotional loading as the whole point.
Why this score: The speaker escalates from showing something to announcing total computer destruction with zero technical explanation of what the malware actually does or whether any real damage occurs. The loaded verbs do all the persuasive work while the actual mechanism stays vague.
Original quote: “And after we confronted call center 1, we decided to call and destroy call center 2. But wait, sir, I sir, I have a question. So I have a question for you. You think your you think your computer's hacked right?”
See the full analysis with timestamps →