|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
That is, of course anyone from the UK Royal Family speaking. "One might say one is one, but if one is not believed, how does one prove one is one?"
To be fair, 99% of the time proof is not necessary. But if one is caught up in something too weird to be true, and yet it is true, there suddenly becomes an overriding need to prove that one is real. And, over the past few days and weeks a situation has arisen where it has become necessary for someone to prove that he is real and is where he says he is.
The thing is, quite reasonably, he does not want to reveal personal details. That is intimidating and invasive. He should not have to give street address etc. So, how can he prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is real while staying behind a "Clark Kent" identity? He is happy to reveal a picture of himself to relevant people, but how does he prove that this is not just "any smiling youth", and is he, himself?
It should also be something that the person who needs him to prove it can return and still feel safe behind real anonymity until such time as they can each know the other is real.
This has arisen because of a series of events that are larger than life, and are simply unbelievable. I am not going in to them here, nor, please should anyone who has been party to them reveal them here. But the events themslves are so strange as to stretch belief thinner than is reasonable. Add to this an IP address that points to a country other than the one that is in need of provng he is real and where he says he is, and you get a situation where trust is impossible until proven.
So, those involved need your help, because there is a romance in the background here, and that romance is either real or is abusive. And that situation needs resolution.
[Updated on: Tue, 18 May 2004 06:21]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUST and believing that your heart knows the truth.
Hope that helps a little.
Brian
To love oneself is the beginning of a life-long romance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It's a valid answer unless things have gone very strange. And these things have gone very strange. This is beyond trust, and so the emotional answer is not useful at all.
When there is a geographic conflict between IP address of point of access to the internet and the declared country where the perosn is, that is at best "odd". Where many ther weird and wonderful(!) circumstances combine to make the whole scenario stranger than fiction (and poor fiction at that!) then trust can no longer be sufficient.
We would very much love to trust all these persons. Some are highly pleasant, others act abominably. But we do not yet dare to. Trust was presentonce and the oddity of the circumstances has removed it. At least one of the people who wishes to trust is a minor, and as such deserves protection. At least one of those we wish to trust is only just not a minor, and as such justifies protection.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The person suspecting gives the other person a short, distinct message. The person that is suspected writes the message on a piece of cardboard or such, then goes outside to a location with features that are typical for the country he claims to live in - mail box, phone booth, retail chain stores and so on. Then he gets his picture taken along with the message. Preferably in more than one place.
Now, pictures can be forged using tools like photoshop etc, but it is difficult to forge them in outdoors lighting conditions without it showing without considerable skill. Taking several pics makes it harder still as the chance a forgery will reveal itself as that increases when more images have to be forged, and requiring more than one pic will of course eliminate the easiest way of forging a pic; grabbing one off the internet of a dude holding a sign and just replacing the message.
Like I said, not completely foolproof, but should definitely be sufficient beyond any reasonable doubt provided 3 or 4 images are provided. With just one, well... That's up to the person suspecting to decide. 
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
This is getting better. I like this idea. You see we REALLy want this person to be real. But it cannot be just because we wish it. It has to be real.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe put a small time cap on when to have the pictures done? although some are adept enough in photo-programs to do edits quickly, not everyone is. and if you do a series of pictures (even if just taken off a cellphone or something?) and say, "please try and have them by tomorrow" maybe that'll add a little more credibility?
*quite alarmed, otherwise. hope that helps.*
my void does not want.
-- 2.13.61.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
And know that he is studying at ADFA, the Australian Defence Force Academy. He is majoring in Computer Science as a Signals officer, which basically puts his future role as "cyber warfare" more than anything. He has 'hacking' abilities through which he could probably assure some kind of proof. It would be done covertly without a 'regular user' being able to tell anything... and it would only be done if the person that "cannot be trusted" (and I use that losely) concented.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... that the IP URI is at odds with the stated whereabouts of the "party" subject to this discussion because they have chosen to avail themselves of anonymizer facilites/services.
A number of these do exist; I've used them myself in much earlier days; especially with regard to e-Mail or questionable Newgroup communications or participation.
One is based out of Montreal, Canada (the one I had used); another Brussels, Belgium I believe; and there exist several in the continental U.S. A Search on the word "anonymizer" should bring up quite a list; each is I believe required to publish to their web-site a listing of their known URI's. This will not help sort out the actual location of the errant "party", but it should clarify whether he is using on of these services or not.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... I should clarify my use of the word "questionable".
Nothing, but nothing, I have ever, ever, done, excepting maybe my getting out of bed too early in the morning, has been what could even remotely be construed as being "questionable". I used it here in terms of the nature of the matérial, or content, of the more generalized expression Newsgroups.
My use of anonymizer facilities/services was intended to obscure my identity, not because I was ashamed, or uncertain, of my participation in such venues, but more because we're speaking of a time and places (as recently as 5-years, and further back as many as 10-years or more) when the "Moral Majority" and others of their ilk (and "filth") were monitoring Newsgroups, Newsservers, later, Lycos, Yahoo! and Excite Clubs, and e-Groups for potential "Homosexual" content and participation, openly taking names, tracking down and identifying the participants and blatantly harassing them for their being simply who they were, and are. Frankly, I no-longer care, long ago having reconciled myself to who and what I am, and certainly not especially afraid of others having that knowledge, with my having reached an age where likely trash such as they represent cannot injure me.
I do, however, continue to value my privacy, almost to the point of it being absurd, using two telephone numbers, the first published, with a Telco-provided Voice-messaging system that threads to their Server where messages are taken but never, ever, retrieved with the number in fact not even being physically installed at my premises, and the second ex-directory, but registered under a name that could not ever be remotely associated with me, or my family, or any of my enterprises. This latter situation allows that I need neither the services of call-waiting (visual or otherwise), call-answer, or any similar such devices that could encourage me to screen callers. When my ex-directory telephone number "rings", if I'm home, it is answered with a cheerful "Good Morning", or "Good Afternoon", or "Good Evening", as may be applicable. Period. Those in possession of that number, and therefore capable of reaching out and touching me, are people I definitely wish to speak with, consequently I have no need for other screening devices or artifice. The same applies to my address. All routine Regular Mail communication is forwarded to a Canada Post address that is stored (by them) for 15-days, and unless I intervene to retrieve something erroneously sent there, is then routinely thrown away without my ever having physically received it. Only a handful of individuals have a "true" physical address for me.
Paranoiac, perhaps. Prudent, I don't know, but I'm comfortable that way.
Would I use "anonymizer" facilities/services again? Quite possibly, but only should the circumstances warrant it, just as they had in the past.
Should use of anonymizers be widespread? They are; but I question their day-to-day use as being necessary. Other options are available such as the use of a Web-browser/e-Mail application that encourages, easy, "one-touch" file and e-Mail encryption for daily activities, which would have been my choice for entering into correspondence in a situation such as being discussed in this thread. If two people are "feeling one another out", attempting to further the degree of trust between them, then obscuring IP URI's and other communications is not the answer. Encryption is, and clear forthright and object honesty in the body of that communication a must.
There is a great deal of "hate" out there; in large part directed at anyone deemed "different" from the norm, this being not the exclusive province of those who are Gay. It is always, and I suspect will become even more so, prudent and necessary to be circumspect in dealing with others through this medium; but that should apply without it having to be stated at all.
Governments everywhere, mine own included, are grappling with issues, and dilemmas they never thought possible in earlier times; but the solution to many of those lie outside of any enshrined attitudes about Privacy and Security we as individuals may have held, hopefully today continue to enjoy, and may likely in future be able to secure.
Its' a delicate and fine line those of us who value, and enforce, our right to absolute privacy and security must tread. Unfortunately there always comes a point where, the shrouding of one's identity, however effected, must come to an end. This may well be one of those milestones for this individual.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of photos is fine, I admit. Just one stupid question, how do you know it's who it's supposed to be in the pictures?
Setras
That which is dreamed can never be lost, can never be undreamed.
-Master Li in Neil Gaiman's Sandman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is you can't KNOW, but if you get a bunch of pictures with a custom message you gave, with features clearly identifiable to the country where the person SAYS he lives, then it doesn't really matter if the guy is him or not because if the pics come from the country in question then it is very likely the guy in the pics is the right guy as well.
You can't be certain, but REASONABLY one would not think the suspected person would get some other person in a completely different country to make a sign and get himself photographed with it just to get pictures so he could trick the suspecting person...
Other than actually GOING TO MEET the suspected, there's no way the suspecting can be 100% certain I think.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the internet there is never 100% assurance that the other person at the end of the line is who he says he is. I'm a teenager who visits chatrooms and forums just to talk to people. I know many of the people i talk to are not who they say they are. I believe them to a certain point but there is always that one possibility the other person might be lieing. It is nice maybe they have a picture but with technology today anybody can manipulate a picture to make it look is real. For a me a photo is not a enough to believe a person because there so many ways one can lie.
Lets say i want to meet a person. What i would personally would do is i would talk to them through the phone. Just by hearing their voice one can get an idea if that person is my age, older or very young. I listen to how they express themselves..... trying to find clues it is true they are who they say they are. Just by listening to a voice i get to know/learn more about a person. Anyther method i used is i ask them if i can see them on webcam. I have one.. they can see me and see to check i'm the person from the pictures. If i see them on webcam.... well is almost impossible to lie because is a live video and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell the other person is infact is a fake. I know webcams are not very expensive and are easy to get at any hardware store.. i don't see why the other person should not buy one. If they just don't want to ... then i guess is ok but i then again chances of us meeting are very slim because i would never be sure... i would have no proof. If they hesitate or give to many excuses something fishy is going on. I know when i person is for sure telling the truth... 99% of the time they would not hesitate to talk to you in the phone or use a webcam.
Well i gave my ideas..... of course maybe there are other ways to prove one is one. From experience.. just by trusting and looking at some pictures just doesn't cut it for me because is very easy to lie. To me if i hear a voice and see live video then most likely the other person is not a fake. I never exchanged personal info....they person still kept its credability and we are both happy we are who we say we are. Then next step of course is to meet the person in a public place because who knows what he really wants and i don't know he might be crazy. Never be alone with them unless you are completely sure.
Just my two cents
You don't love someone because they are beautiful, they are beautiful because you love them.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
How does one prove one is one? 
Nothing is really FOOLPROOF, but... 
