April 21, 2017 at 7:31 pm #10456
OK, I just received a phone call from Stacey. Something really weird is going on and I’m completely frustrated and paranoid…
First, a little backstory:
Last week, Stacey called me out of the blue. She asked how things were with my wife and told me about this new “iConfidant” service (I was one of the few to get the initial round of calls) and that they would be looking for a match for me. She told me that she would have people follow me around to get “data” and asked me if that was okay? I said “Yes,” since I’m pretty used to being stalked by now.
And that was that. I didn’t sign up for the registration like everyone else, cause it seemed like I was hand selected to be among the first round of Beta testers. Was very excited that things were finally happening for me.
Cut to today: People get e-mail surveys from iConfidant. I don’t. @111error doesn’t either (he was among the initial round of phone calls), so he e-mailed Stacey and heard back that some mistakes were made and they were correcting them. Because I didn’t want to get neglected due to another clerical, I sent her an e-mail making sure everything was going according to plan…
Tonight, Stacey called me. She apologized for taking so long to get back to me and told me how great it was that MY WIFE had signed up for the service too!
“I didn’t know about this,” I told her.
“Yes, we’re very excited!” she replied.
She then went on to tell me that she reviewed my survey answers and that, due to ethical reasons, iConfidant can no longer help me.
“But I didn’t send in a survey!” I said. I hadn’t heard anything since our first phone call.
“I have your survey right here,” she said, “and for obvious reasons, we can’t help you.”
I tried to pry more out of her, but she wouldn’t say why.
Then I call my wife and ask her if she signed up for iConfidant. She responds with “What’s that?”
So now my iConfidant Beta test has been cancelled over answers to a questionnaire I NEVER RECEIVED, and my wife is apparently signed up even though she DID NOT SIGN UP.
What the fuck is going on here?!?!?!?!
April 21, 2017 at 7:35 pm #10457
April 21, 2017 at 7:47 pm #10461
April 21, 2017 at 7:49 pm #10462
April 21, 2017 at 7:49 pm #10463
April 21, 2017 at 7:51 pm #10465
That’s the only explanation. Someone is impersonating not only me, but my wife!
April 21, 2017 at 7:53 pm #10466MelissaParticipant
What the f*ckity f*ck is going on? This sounds like somebody submitted answers on your behalf AND signed up your wife too?!
April 21, 2017 at 7:53 pm #10467LiaParticipant
Well hey, at least there’s two rejects now!
April 21, 2017 at 7:58 pm #10468Anonymous
This… is a weird development.
You definitely have a shadow.
I would email Stacey and say “I did not send in anything. Someone is trying to impersonate me. “
April 21, 2017 at 8:01 pm #10470
April 21, 2017 at 8:02 pm #10471
@thebuz Already done, my friend. If you hear anything from me, you know our special code phrase.
April 21, 2017 at 8:09 pm #10472Anonymous
You’re goddamn right @kasch.
That all being said… I suggest everyone here make sure you have a code word with a partner. To make sure all is well if…suspicions rise.
We had to do it last year as I got a call from @kasch number and it was just clips of him talking about me on a podcast. When I called back he was very clearly in a car with his wife and kid chatting in the background.
So yeah… they know how to make it look like someone else is calling your phone.
April 21, 2017 at 8:18 pm #10473
Also be careful guys. Saying someone is impersonating you is sane to US but to the public it will sound like you’re insane.
April 21, 2017 at 8:20 pm #10474
April 21, 2017 at 8:21 pm #10475
April 21, 2017 at 8:35 pm #10476Anonymous
How to tell it is not me?
I am actually calling you…
April 21, 2017 at 8:48 pm #10478KevinParticipant
Not really sure where this iConfidant stuff is going, but this is the second time it’s moved towards identity theft. They did start off by trying to phish security question answers off everyone in that one round of phone calls. For those moving forward with them, that may be something to keep in mind. Similar to the code words that @thebuz has set up, it might be worth setting up additional security on your normal accounts for an additional layer of comfort (it’s also just not a bad idea in general).
April 21, 2017 at 8:49 pm #10479
April 21, 2017 at 8:50 pm #10480
April 21, 2017 at 8:59 pm #10481
Have you considered someone is trying to help you? We don’t know what iConfidant actually is, but someone does. Maybe someone is out there watching out for you, someone who doesn’t want you getting involved. Although if the fake you was rejected and your fake wife was accepted, it’s much more sinister to think that someone is trying to drive some sort of wedge. Though what can they accomplish as your wife alone if your actual wife chooses simply to ignore it? At any rate, I shudder to think how any single word answers to the questions of your worst memory or your relationship with your mother could completely disqualify you. Someone must have been trying very hard to keep you out. I’d bet that someone will be in touch.
April 21, 2017 at 8:59 pm #10482
Unless I hear back from Stacey, I am going under the assumption that iConfidant is one giant scam that is data mining us.
April 21, 2017 at 9:04 pm #10483
April 21, 2017 at 9:04 pm #10484
April 21, 2017 at 9:27 pm #10486
April 21, 2017 at 9:39 pm #10487
April 21, 2017 at 9:45 pm #10488
We don’t have much information to work with, but to find out why Lia was rejected, we need to figure out what she has in common with other rejectees, but that which she *doesn’t* with those who were accepted.
April 21, 2017 at 9:56 pm #10489
@nothenrygale @izryn, honestly I think part of it might be she only sent her first email to Stacey yesterday. Beta tests are limited by nature, maybe she just ran out of room. Or, if you want to get conspiracyish about it, I’m willing to bet iConfidant and the System share a bit of DNA. Perhaps her close ties to the Sinclairs thus far have disqualified her. Or, yes, it very well could be our relationship.
April 21, 2017 at 10:06 pm #10490GoldTongueParticipant
i love this i love this i love this
April 21, 2017 at 10:13 pm #10491JeremyParticipant
My initial thought when iC came up was that they were using the shadows to set people up with them. But if a shadow impersonated a client then that wouldn’t make sense. Also it’s interesting how she said “for obvious reasons.” What was so out of line that would make them deny a client?
April 21, 2017 at 10:14 pm #10492
My wife has a forum account but she is not active at all.
It didn’t sound like her involvement was the reason I was booted from iConfidant.
April 21, 2017 at 10:25 pm #10496
April 21, 2017 at 10:44 pm #10502Annette007Participant
Things are getting weirder at the speed of
April 21, 2017 at 11:21 pm #10505
April 21, 2017 at 11:55 pm #10509M.Participant
April 21, 2017 at 11:59 pm #10513
I believe their path is just one that may not involved iConfidant right now or at all.
April 22, 2017 at 8:06 am #10527
Marriage has nothing to do with it since it was mentioned in my first iConfidant call. And if my path isn’t with them, why did they reach out to me first???
This is all too weird.
April 22, 2017 at 8:55 am #10529
OK, a few thoughts.
1. I think that Lia and Kasch are two separate cases. I think the thing that separates Lia from the rest of us is possibly Noah & his interest in her – perhaps she was rejected because of him? Because he’s pulling the strings somehow? Someone suggested Sarah possibly was?
2. Kasch and Morgan didn’t get the congrats emails, but I did. However, I registered for the beta online (I was also one of the few initial phone calls). I wonder if there is a correlation between Kasch’s and Morgan’s unusual experiences and them not registering for the beta…if I hadn’t registered online like they didn’t, maybe I wouldn’t have gotten one either?
3. @kingkill33 – did you register for the beta? Did you get a congrats email? Was there anyone else who got that initial out of the blue phone call from Stacey, before the website was found?
4. @kasch – was there a shadow version of you yet on the forums?
April 22, 2017 at 11:33 am #10543KINGKILL33Participant
@coryphella I did not register with iCompanion since I was under the assumption they were going to following me around and told me as such. I also did not receive a congratulations email from them. I did happen to reach out to them on FB Messenger though, and asked if this a mistake or not. Typical read, no reply. The way I figure it, they will get around to me when they find the time.
April 22, 2017 at 11:47 am #10545KINGKILL33Participant
Well it seems that iConfidant definitely is reading the forums here. Just got a reply back from them apologizing that I did not receive the email, but that I am indeed one of the individuals picked for the beta program. They mention I was one of a few selected early on, and will be in touch with me very soon. So, are the people that were selected early on @kasch, @111error, @coryphella, and myself? Any others??
April 22, 2017 at 1:48 pm #10552
OK, well, I was kind of worried I had screwed up my _path by registering when obviously Kasch & Morgan hadn’t and had interesting results, you made me feel better. 🙂 I wonder if the purpose of calling the four of us (or more?) was just to spread the word and get the website out?
April 22, 2017 at 7:25 pm #10562
Update: Stacey just called me!!!
She said she was offended and upset that I was sending her such “explicit and unethical” emails. I told her I hadn’t, and that my wife had never heard of iConfidant.
Stacey: “So you’re telling me you’re not the one sending these explicit emails???”
Me: “Hand to God, Stacey!”
Stacey: “I have to check with my IT department! I’ll call you back!”
Guys… I have an imposter out there! And he’s trying hard to fuck things up for me!
April 22, 2017 at 7:30 pm #10563monkeymuffin333Participant
Let’s catch the imposter and then have a suspicious BBQ right after.
April 22, 2017 at 7:33 pm #10564
April 22, 2017 at 7:45 pm #10565
…I can’t be the only one dying to see these “explicit and unethical” emails.
You know, for science.
April 22, 2017 at 7:52 pm #10566
April 22, 2017 at 8:03 pm #10569
April 22, 2017 at 8:05 pm #10570
April 22, 2017 at 8:08 pm #10572
I’m still wondering about the motivation. The person clearly isn’t trying to get into iConfidant as you, they’re being so offensive that no version of Andrew Kasch is admitted. I don’t know how hard I would fight against this shadow just to join the same accepted list as everyone else. This is making me worried about being on that list. It feels like you have a foul-mouthed guardian angel out there. Or at least someone who wants you on a different path.
April 22, 2017 at 8:24 pm #10574
April 22, 2017 at 8:32 pm #10575Tim RedmanParticipant
Stacy could produce the mail headers and maybe ID the location
April 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm #10577ShaunParticipant
So does this mean the “shadow version is a better version of us” theory is invalid?
It does still fit with the “manipulate the real world via bots” theory.
April 22, 2017 at 8:40 pm #10579
April 22, 2017 at 9:02 pm #10580
April 22, 2017 at 9:08 pm #10583
I hope Stacey finds some info on this and let’s me know something soon.
I also don’t think this is Shadow Kasch. It doesn’t fit their modus operandi.
And to my imposter, who is undoubtably reading this: I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve other than being a colossal dick…but it’s only a matter of time before you’re discovered. It would be wise to step out of the shadows and explain yourself before that happens.
April 22, 2017 at 9:14 pm #10584JackieParticipant
Are there any samples of you being vulgar? Like maybe you’re a total dick on facebook and they could have pinched an idea of what it would be like to be ‘Negative Kasch’.Who knows? Maybe it is a internet vigilante trying to spare you from IConfidant? Or a person aligned Chaotic Evil. The Plot thickets.
What does explicit Kasch even look like? Is it obvious, or is it subtle?
DTF, READY TO MINGLE WIT DIS DISCO_STICK. ME AND MY OLD LADY DOWN_WIT_DA_GETDOWNZ.”
“Stephanie, whatever your name is,
I dislike the oxford comma verymuch so. “
April 22, 2017 at 9:22 pm #10585JeremyParticipant
Someone doing it to protect you doesn’t sound right to me. It’s too elaborate. They could have just asked to be removed from the program and you would have stopped being connected non the wiser. Instead they are harassing Stacey. There must be another motive, or enjoyment.
April 22, 2017 at 9:25 pm #10586
April 22, 2017 at 10:00 pm #10592
April 23, 2017 at 9:02 am #10605
April 24, 2017 at 4:13 pm #10702
Update: A technician from the iConfidant IT department called me.
He verified my email address and then asked me to visit the iConfidant home page and hold down the R+L+N+Command keys for 3 seconds. He told me to tell him once that was done, and I did (nothing happened).
“Great! Thanks! We’ll be in touch!”
He hung up before I asked him about the explicit emails.
April 24, 2017 at 4:17 pm #10704
Strange…. wonder if there’s any significance of the letters RLN?
April 24, 2017 at 4:20 pm #10705Kyle BownParticipant
Command+R Refreshes the page
Command+L Seems to highlight the website in the address bar
Command+N Opens a new window
April 24, 2017 at 4:34 pm #10710Anonymous
I’ve tried every variation of R+L+N Command and it doesn’t do much.
I’m curious from an IT standpoint what the hell they were trying to achieve by that.
Any I.T. specialists out there that might know what this could mean?
April 24, 2017 at 4:37 pm #10711
From my experience with web sites, really it shouldn’t be able to do anything, at least from a browser standpoint. Only thing that’s possible is if they put some secret command into their website that’s triggered by those letters. Some sites do this (some times without the company even knowing) when bored programmers sneak little easter eggs in. My favorite example is from ESPN a few years ago.
So it’s entirely possible the iConfidant website has some secret script that is triggered by those letters.
April 24, 2017 at 4:37 pm #10712
I hope that wasn’t your shadow calling, and it was actually the IT department….
April 24, 2017 at 4:49 pm #10716Anonymous
April 24, 2017 at 4:51 pm #10717
April 24, 2017 at 4:55 pm #10719
Per my brother, computer engineer, when asked what those four keys would be used for:
“So a web page could detect you entering them. But otherwise, they have no meaning together that I know of. command + r, command + l, etc all have meaning in a browser, as you mentioned.”
*shrug* so I don’t know if there’s much in the pressing of those buttons themselves. Except for obviously stealing Kasch’s fingerprints and making a clone of him using magic.
April 24, 2017 at 5:01 pm #10720
April 24, 2017 at 5:03 pm #10721
April 24, 2017 at 5:04 pm #10722Anonymous
Game of Thrones theory that has been around since the 90’s.
Theory is that Jon Snow is the son of Ragar Targathian and Leanna Stark. Not actually the son of Ned Stark.
April 24, 2017 at 5:09 pm #10723
April 24, 2017 at 5:10 pm #10724
Thanks guys. I don’t watch much tv and was thinking it was a reference to Tension/Lust canon. After about 30 sec googling I realized my mistake.
May 11, 2017 at 8:40 pm #13169
I just received the following email from Stacey:
Andrew, thank you for your patience while this was investigated.
After new developments it seems that I can not definitely say exactly what happened so… onward and upward I suppose. If you are still interested in your own confidant please reply to this email with “ begin” . Please understand that if any new information comes to light that attaches you to the previous correspondence I will immediately terminate our relationship without hesitation. I hope enjoy finding your new perfect match.
So it appears I am now back in the iConfidant program.
But what are these “new developments” she speaks about? I can only speculate, but it seems to me like Noah’s shenanigans might have caused the OSDM to issue a stranglehold on information over at iConfidant.
May 11, 2017 at 8:54 pm #13172
May 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm #13173
May 11, 2017 at 9:03 pm #13175
I just double checked the e-mail and hidden underneath in the “previous history” section was this…
From: Campbell Mark <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Kasch correspondence, email chain 1 of 3 (Start date April 12, 2017) Case: KL304-1
Date: May 07, 2017 at 5:13:46 PM PDT
To: Stacey Erikson <email@example.com>
Sorry it’s been Hell. Yes, my kid is fine as the shots seem to be taking hold. Jesus, Stacey I know your under pressure with whoever the hell those guys are but remember when we used to kind of care about each other’s lives? I mean I took this job because you promised we would be chill.
Okay, the sort of weird thing here is that the IP tracker showed a bunch of different addresses – we didn’t even bother with that in the beginning because it’s not unusually for people to correspond from different locations and devices but after running out of all other options we looked them up and they are bouncing all of the world. Hong Kong, Botswana and Argentina. Unless old Andy has a lot of frequent miles this might just be a weird spam thing. I don’t know, we’re all short on a reasonable explanation.
May 11, 2017 at 9:07 pm #13178Haley WildeParticipant
Seems like they know just about as much as we do when it comes to iConfidant…
May 11, 2017 at 9:08 pm #13179
First off…Mark Campbell is apparently their IT guy (and maybe Stacey’s significant other?). “The shots seem to be taking hold?” comment is alarming. What is happening?
And his “these guys” comment sure seems to indicate our theory about the OSDM or investors barging into the company.
But this opens up a whole new can of worms: IPs from all over the country???
This means that whoever impersonated me is either a master hacker or a hive of people. Could Noah have secret accomplices in his scheme?
- This reply was modified 2 years ago by Andrew Kasch.
May 11, 2017 at 9:20 pm #13182
Also fuck that dude for being an IT guy who uses “your” incorrectly
May 11, 2017 at 10:55 pm #13189Taylor WintersParticipant
I am very interested in the comments about the shots taking hold. Maybe it has to do with the same “sickness” that we assumed Noah’s Tim might have. Maybe Mark and Noah’s kids are around the same age and both come from a program. Maybe this is a program trying to develop Future Humans. Maybe there’s something connecting iConfidant and The System. Or maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree.
May 11, 2017 at 11:12 pm #13190
May 11, 2017 at 11:14 pm #13191
Ps. This Mark Campbell guy is saying things that make me think him and Stacey used to date. Just throwing that out there.
May 11, 2017 at 11:18 pm #13192
In regards to the IP thing, didn’t we notice our iConfidants emails seemed to be sent from various locations as well?
May 12, 2017 at 12:31 am #13196
@kasch My first thought was that Mark is Stacey’s ex, since he alludes to a previous relationship (“we used to care about each other’s lives”) and to some trouble with said relationship that has since been accepted (“you promised we would be chill”).
Looks like neither Stacey not Mark knows who’s supporting the company and are pressuring her (the same Investors that funded Tension, I bet!). That, or Stacey’s just not telling him.
But! I’m glad it’s been sorted. Can’t wait to hear what your iC is like!
May 12, 2017 at 5:57 am #13197
The “shots are taking hold” comment sounds like it’s referring to a sick kid.
Did anyone try emailing Mark? I did and it bounced back.
May 12, 2017 at 6:26 am #13198
May 12, 2017 at 6:32 am #13199
I also was a little unclear; Mark is presumably referring to the Noah as Kasch emails that came to iconfidant but it read to me like he’s referring to OUR Confidants, themselves. We’ve had folks track their confidant emails as coming from multiple locations beyond what is normal, too, yes?
May 12, 2017 at 9:52 am #13211
@wanda102 I didn’t sound like he was referring to the iConfidants, because he was responding to Stacey in the e-mail chain. (She said “What is the status on this? Need an update.” referring to my case).
At any rate, it feels good to be back in the program again.
And I did try and e-mail Mark to say thanks and offer my support, but it bounced as well.
This is all very interesting…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.