It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we get an ATS Verification System?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Suggestion:
Would it be possible to get a mechanism in place that verifies ATS members on a voluntary basis?

Why?

Let´s say I would like disclose certain things about myself in a U2U, I would like to know if a person is who he claims to be and where he claims to be to avoid disclosing information to someone who maybe a government official. Hey, better paranoid than exposed. At the moment there is no way of knowing for sure.

ATS Verification System could be something like:

Location verification through Reverse-IP lookup
Real name verification through faxing photo-ID
Proof of residence etc.
All info deleted/destroyed after verification
Non disclosure to others, only admin sees it for verification purposes.
Some form of icon to identify a member as ATS verified (little shield or something)

Why would I want to be verified myself?

To prove I am not a spook. Ofcourse not wanting to be verified does not mean someone has something to hide, you should just see this as added value to the board.

Remember, this is voluntary, so no big brother alert here...

[edit on 28-4-2006 by HardToGet]




posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I sure hope you are kidding. I for one do not want anything like that and feel it is very bad idea. I also feel it would add nothing to the board



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
i am not sure about this idea...

if one is willing to "disclose" certain things (sensitive info?) over an ATS u2u (which is idiotic, sorry), then they need something like this...

if one wants to "disclose" sensitive things to an individual that this person believes can assist them, do it over the phone...

then, "validate" that phone number...

just my two cents...




[edit on 28-4-2006 by they see ALL]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Um, i'm sure if their was a real "spook" on the board, they would be able to fool such a system my friend...

Bad idea!!

-- Boat



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I sure hope you are kidding. I for one do not want anything like that and feel it is very bad idea.


Aha! We´ve identified our first government agent here!

Just kidding shots, I do feel it maybe worthwile to at least consider. If this is not asked we will never know how others feel.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Um, i'm sure if their was a real "spook" on the board, they would be able to fool such a system


There would be no need to fool the system, as ATS VS would be voluntary, and should remain so.

EDIT: I´m sure that the collective brothers will be able to find a way to make it somewhat difficult to fool if such a system were to be created. I´m volunteering for coding if needed.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
There's no value. For instance, I know my husband and my husband knows me and we both know neither of us are spooks...but when fat broads who chain-smoke and drink whiskey talk to themselves and decide themselves (in the future) have told them we are spooks - it doesn't matter how many people say we are not - they'll just keep lying. There are some people you can never convince. And because of that this system would just be a system that took people's personal information and gave nothing in return.

Trust me - I've lived through it.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
this system would just be a system that took people's personal information and gave nothing in return.


Just and only for verification purposes. I know, the risks are high and a lot of work would be required.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
HardToGet -

Privacy is a good thing. If you are concerned about disclosing personal information to someone else via U2U, err on the side of caution and do not disclose it. You should not be asking the rest of us to sacrifice our right to what privacy we have here, particularly to the extent that you suggest.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet

Just and only for verification purposes. I know, the risks are high and a lot of work would be required.


Verify to who? That's my point. There's no value. You would set up a cumbersome system that some mod(s) would have to work and then - here's the important part - if some weird-ended freak decides a certain member is a spook no amount of talking by mods are going to change that! IN FACT, it would cause drama and rumors against the mods - ESPECIALLY IF THE MEMBER LIED!

It's worthless. No nastiness intended, just honesty and reality.

[edit on 4-28-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bibliophile
You should not be asking the rest of us to sacrifice our right to what privacy we have here, particularly to the extent that you suggest.


Well spoken, but it would be voluntary, so nothing would be asked from anyone.

An alternative might be some form of secure or private channels- There already is some form of private room with paid access which already lifts its members out of anonymity.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Verify to who? That's my point. There's no value. You would set up a cumbersome system that some mod(s) would have to work and then - here's the important part - if some weird-ended freak decides a certain member is a spook no amount of talking by mods are going to change that! IN FACT, it would cause drama and rumors against the mods - ESPECIALLY IF THE MEMBER LIED!


To other members. If such a system truly works, it would not be possible for a verified member to be a spook, and the reason for attacking such a member would no longer exist. If someone accuses a non verified member that would be a different matter, and cannot be helped.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Just thought I would mention ...

Consider this:

1) Bandwidth

2) Server CPU calls

3) Bandwidth

4) Benefit -vs- Costs

Considering 1 thru 3, what you are suggesting wouldn't be truly feasible with regards to 4

When considering such "enhancements" it ultimately has to come down to a "does the benefit outweigh the cost and effort involved" scenario. In the case of your suggestion I would have to think, NO.

Not to discourage your intentions, but, IMO, it just wouldn't be feasible.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet


Aha! We´ve identified our first government agent here!

Just kidding shots, I do feel it maybe worthwile to at least consider. If this is not asked we will never know how others feel.


Kidding or not I am not a Spook. If you think I am prove it.

No offense but this has to be the lamest ideas I have seen yet on ATS.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
No offense but this has to be the lamest ideas I have seen yet on ATS.



harsh dude...

this guy had an idea and we should try to be a somewhat neutral responder to this idea...

sure say your opinion, but not that


i know it was "no offense" but still...





posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Not to discourage your intentions, but, IMO, it just wouldn't be feasible.


Yes, I expected this. It would be a technical nightmare to say the least. Interesting to see the responses to this though, thanks.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Kidding or not I am not a Spook. If you think I am prove it.


Why does your reverse-ip resolve to the CIA grid in Virginia then?

You´ve had that coming....


Chill shots, your opinion is duly noted and I respect it.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet

To other members. If such a system truly works, it would not be possible for a verified member to be a spook, and the reason for attacking such a member would no longer exist. If someone accuses a non verified member that would be a different matter, and cannot be helped.


But why would ATS want to discourage anybody? If we have members that are working for the government, what difference does that make. I've a got a good-sized bet us non-spooks out number them xxxxx to 1. And just because some one works for the government doesn't mean they are here for nefarious reasons.

It's just a silly idea. That's putting nicer than shots, actually...but it is.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
This is a bad idea.
I would like to remain the "spook" that some here think I am, thank you very much.







seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
This is a bad idea.
I would like to remain the "spook" that some here think I am, thank you very much.







seekerof


See! Proof positive. You would take the mystique surrounding Seekerof away and replace it with some poor mod saying - NO! he really isn't! And then people would still think he was.

Case in point, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join