This topic has 49 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by 
.
-
Posts
-
-
Stacey just called me to ask about my iConfidant experience so far. She wanted to know if my Confidant had tried to contact me outside the designated email chain, and she wanted me to forward her our entire chain. She said this was because “the last thing she’d ever want would be for my Confidant to betray me.” ?
I asked if that’s something I should be worried about. She said vaguely that she just needed to be sure, since they’d had a “glitch”. She assured me it would all be fine and I didn’t need to worry.
…hmm.
-
Had there been anything strange with your iConfidant to prompt the call or more just like Stacey checking in on the beta?
One of the initial emails from iConfidant said that our confidant may eventually contact us through a personal email. Very odd that it would now be an issue for Stacey. Maybe someone was contacted outside of the normal email chain and hasn’t mentioned it yet?
-
Why would it be betrayal if they just wanted to talk to you outside of the email chain? Didn’t she say that when the iConfidant wanted to, they could ask if you wanted to start talking on a private email? Does she want a certain amount of time to pass before you can talk to them alone without her superveillance or something?
-
-
-
I wonder if the site going down today was “the glitch”?
iC’s started to go rogue and they pulled the site to cut off the server access?
Or it’s a hint of things to come.
I meeeeeean, @thebuz’s has already theatened to break his heart and @timsmyname’s psychologically fucked with him to punish him for suggesting he was a robot.Mine just wanted to know what I made for lunch.
-
-
Oh god our iConfidant emails are going to be leaked. ?
-
If some of us did have Sabrina as our Confidant, and if she was supposed to be brainwashed with no memory of her past life, and if she contacted someone secretly because she was starting to remember and wanted to keep it off iConfidant’s radar…I could see how they would be worried. Just a theory.
If my Confidant is in any sort of trouble I hope they’ll feel comfortable reaching out to me.
-
I wonder what that glitch was? Something do to with @kasch? Or something completely different that we haven’t learned of yet? I agree that it sounds like a confidant started to stray from the rules and wanting to communicate without the company watching
-
The idea that it would be undesirable for a confidant to contact their participant outside of the “approved” channel certainly supports the theory that our data is being mined from our responses. Now I think about it, my confidant has ignored certain strands of conversation, while enthusiastically pursuing others. Seemed natural at the time, although when you look at it sceptically… Maybe they’re being controlled, tasked with finding out specific things that will be useful. And with messages not going thru the central server, our conversations can’t be monitored and are essentially useless… Maybe the plan for us to be able to contact our confidants directly only comes into play when “they” have no further use for us…
-
I have to believe Stacey is in way over her head. I’ve repeatedly expressed my evidence backed concerns for the safety and security of her and her company and she’s resorted to either ignoring me or telling me “Everything’s just fine!”
Stacey, I’ve grown to love you like a sister but putting your head in the sand and/or lying to us isn’t going to cut it any longer.
Last week I gave my confidant all my contact information including phone, address, and my full name. I explained to her I was concerned that one day iConfidant might go dark on us (or worse) and I’d hate for us to lose contact. She wrote my info down and keeps it safe.
The iConfidant rules are just ridiculous at this point. I greatly appreciate being matched with someone who’s become a good friend, but why must we continue to go through their servers? Why can’t we know our confidants’ names? My confidant is sending a message to iConfidant to request permission to meet me for coffee. I appreciate this but seriously, why must two grown women ask for permission to grab coffee together?
-
@thebuz Prepare for all the leaks.
Seriously though, I wonder-like others have mentioned-whether the site going down was the glitch or only part of it. Maybe the site going down and the possibility of the Confidants going rogue are linked?
Hmm…Stacey really wanted to make sure that @daela wasn’t contacted outside of the regular chain of communication, at least without her knowing that it happened…
What would have happened if the Confidant reached out in a different way? What would Stacey have done then?
-
-
@electrichippo I’ve really been wondering about the rules lately too. If we’re all in the same program, how come we can hand over our own names, pictures, and information, but the people on the other end are not allowed to. I was going to say our personal emails as well, but then figured those were filtered through the server. However, our confidants wouldn’t know to contact us at our personal email addresses without being able to see them. So why is all of the information so one sided?
-
-
-
@daela This is a fascinating theory. Even if not Sabrina another handler?
I’ve been holding onto the theory that we all got one of the handlers and Sabrina. I really don’t think mine is Kern, but I’ve been leaning towards another handler…
-
Agreed @electrichippo and @kevin
My Confisant has said before that eventually we would be able to meet and all that but seems to be just in the dark as all of us as to why we have rules as well as just as annoyed at them. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone’s Confidant would go around the rules and contact us… I mean why not, what is even keeping them from doing it? What kind of punishment is so sever that it keeps our matched partners from talking to us outside an email? We’re adults aren’t we?
-
-
Was it Kristin that referenced men with briefcases being present at the iConfidant office? It’s so easy to forget stuff like that when you feel you’re connecting with a potential soul mate. While I trust “Brownie”, I simply don’t trust iConfidant anymore and it makes me sad that I am going to be watching how much I share moving forward. And regret how much I have shared already…
-
@rizzzoooooo A few people got males.
Anyone been called a cunt? Because you got Damien if you were.
-
-
-
@daela That’s an amazing phone call, I’m not going to speculate on what it means but it does seem we now have both the iConfidant staff warning others about bad stuff on the horizon.
My iConfidant wrote back today and seems convinced we’ll meet sooner than later, but I’m cynical about what this really is mow. Something seems a little too perfect and quaint about our exchanges.
-
-
Here’s a thought… What if Stacey doesn’t know for certain that there is a breach? If she did, wouldn’t she contact that person directly? Maybe it’s just a theory/possibility and she’s testing the waters to see if anyone will come forward. Maybe it’s a test to see how we react to the idea of a rogue confidant
-
@blondie That’s not the worst theory I’ve heard. Would also explain why she contacted two people that have little connection to each other’s path so far.
-
@blondie This is actually the theory I’d put my money on. The site went down, a security gap opened up, and now Stacey is worried some iC’s may have had opportunity. Or hell, maybe the site had nothing to do with it, she’s just tossing out bait to see if it’s happened.
Just like when Noah went manic at the focus group and the next day was the statement about the diabeetus and “if he contacts any of you and starts acting weird, tell us ASAP ok?” -
@meghanmayhem @111error Certainly makes sense if the same people are behind both the System and iConfidant, that the same techniques would be employed to “handle” unsatisfactory situations…
-
What if iConfidant has nothing to do with The System or the OSDM and truly is just a private company wanting to put people together and form bonds. The OSDM becomes aware of this company and seeing them as being the perfect treasure trove of knowledge, reactions, emotions, and secrets. If they have the power to affect the stock market, then hacking the server of a small start-up would be no problem. This “glitch” as Stacey calls it would give information on each and every one of us.
-
Ohhh snaps!!
Ok so I JUST got off work and what should I find on my phone?? Two missed calls and a voicemail from “No Caller Id”!!! They tried to call at 3:49 and 3:50. The voicemail was only 7 seconds and to me it sounded like there was an underbeat or something in it and sounded super scratchy. I just had @lilmsfancpants listen to it for me for a second opinion (wondering if I’m being punked since I’ve never been called!) and she thought it sounded “Like a really old printer. A rhythmic chirping of a machine”
Could it have been Stacey trying to call me?? Or am J just wishful thinking?? I still have the voicemail if anyone wants to listen, just need to figure out how to put it up…
-
@clairebuch… That’s the noise we all heard on our first call with Kristen. ?
-
Ohhhhh boy hahaha. Well I’m glad I’m not just being messed with by one of my friends…
-
-
My confidant would never betray me. Right? She wouldn’t, right?
-
@shinobi; Betraying us is one thing–but disappearing is almost as bad as well. I rather like mine. I hope she is being honest.
-
@taysavestheday I really like mine too. Hope she doesn’t disappear.
-
@taysavestheday I really like that theory and wouldn’t be surprised if it was accurate.
It makes perfect sense, and the OSDM/The System definitely has the resources and ability to use and hack into iConfidant to steal our information and use it for nefarious means. Amd I’m sure Stacey wouldn’t know how to combat it.
She’d either have to shut down the site to save our information and ruin her business, try to negotiate with them (which she would fail at, ) or play along for potentially high sums of money (or they could easily blackmail us.)
Just proves how unsecure our “secure” information is.
-
I responded to my iC like half an hour before this post, and with like significant information that I definitely wouldn’t want leaked/freaked out when I read the initial post hours ago.
But the fact we are guessing that it will happen makes me think it won’t happen. Also to what degree could it even get released?
Also, no coincidence that the sites went down near the same time. They’re linked in a way, even if not directly.
-
Small update: after yesterday’s call I contacted my iConfidant to see if she had heard about any weirdness. (It may be my undoing, but I trust her.)
She hadn’t heard about any problems and seemed baffled that Stacey would contact me rather than reach out to her directly. Given that she hasn’t broken any rules, she wasn’t worried about Stacey reading our email chain, but she did subtly raise one point of concern:
“I trust that it won’t get further than just to Stacey? Right?”
-
I haven’t divulged any substantial information to my iConfidant and am not convinced we are a match. That being said, if there is a leak, I am glad I took a more cautious route with my sharing.
-
-
-
-
This rings to me as a test to see if either of you will betray your confidant, not the other way around. If they’re using the iconfidant secure server to send the email chain in the first place, why doesn’t Stacey already have access to them? She may have seemed like she had it together, but it also comes across as someone who might be worried that she’s losing control over her creation.
-
Everything over here is status quo in my neck of the internet. My Iconfidant messages me about once a week, I don’t know their gender, but I’m assuming female. So far this person: Lives in Arizona. Runs a restaurant. Has a horse. LOVES, loves, flourless chocolate cake. And Also does not believe Big Bear, CA is too far out of reach for a rendezvous at the observatory. They’re pretty strict about the ‘rules’ or skates over rules themed conversation.
I don’t know how I could betray this person and I can’t imagine I’d want too.
-
-
Mine still hasn’t made any promises that we’d ever meet up. All but confirmed mine is a guy, though. Also, after a couple back and forth’s talking about the gym and booze, my go-to topics, he’s thrown in a non-sequitur deep probing question. Nothing crazy but definitely not at all along the tone of what we were speaking about before.
-
Been thinking about the glitch some. We don’t know how the iConfidant systems are set up, but we do know our confidants don’t appear to have the information we sent to Stacey just prior to the beta. We also know that someone was able to email iConfidant as @kasch and that Stacey has been very worried about that problem.
Now I’m wondering if the recent glitch wasn’t someone getting into their systems and they can now pose as our iConfidants. We know Stacey is able to monitor the communications to some degree, but maybe she’s able to see less than we think. If she can’t tell who is talking to who, and given the incident with Andrew, some group appears to have fairly sophisticated spoofing technology, iConfidant would have some major issues on their hands. This may also explain why Kristin was worried about iConfidants asking for images.
I’m not sure that 100% tracks with what we know about iConfidant, but there’s also a lot we don’t know about the company.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
