Friday, September 08, 2006

weird video chat with unknown stranger

I just got done spooking a video chat intrusion on my system. As an IT consultant when I've got nothing better to do, I thought I should toss this one out there.

I was posting a comment at Dave Taylor's blog, scolding him for hypertext link ads in post editorial (double-underlined irrelevant commerce links), when I was suddenly interrupted by a Skype call.

A woman named "Muthamani" wished to contact me. I picked up the phone, I mean I clicked the blue phone icon, then another dialogue box asked permission for video webcam chat. I accepted. This was unwise, since I did not know the caller, though she may have posted some comments at this blog, I seem to vaguely recall.

That's not good enough to permit video chat. I was in error. You never know why someone wants to see you physically, see your live video image. Or why they want to show themselves. A smart web user moves with discretion and caution.

I used some precautions. I had the webcam facing a wall, and I had bizarre music by Eddie the Rat ("Breathing Underwater in the Data Stream" from Lip-synching at Zero Gravity CD) blaring wildly out of my boombox in my attic office.

So this video intruder was greeted by Vaspers represented by a wall visually and Eddie the Rat sonically.

When I saw her webcam image, I then turned my webcam on my face, wearing sunglasses of course, due to my eye problems. I cannot tolerate any kind of glare. Anyway, I kept asking her questions she refused to answer. That's creepy.

"How do you know me?" I asked her as I gazed at her face. A black lady, maybe Nigerian. No reply. "Can you see me now?"

"Yes, I see you now", she replied, in what would be the only answer I ever got from this mysterious lady. "Where are you?"

"I'm in the blogosphere," I said automatically, as if in a trance.

"Where?" she asked again.

"The blogosphere, the realm of the blogs," I snarled, a bit snippy at her lack of comprehension. See, I get that all the time. "Blogs? Blogosphere? What that?" these untuned-inners whine every day all day.

Then, since she was not forthcoming, I decided in my extreme Vasperiness, to freak her out. But I solemnly swear I heard her say something like "you're upside down", so she started it.

I slowly began to spin the webcam so that I appeared to be upside down. As I spun the camera, I kept talking, kept repeating my questions "who are you?" and "how you find me?" over and over again, as if in a trance.

In a deep trance, I began shaking my webcam and panning in and out maniacally, so that my head was flying around uncontrollably, as if in a trance, and in trance I zoomed around, bodilessly, decapitated and happy, soaring through dishes and trees, with superimpositions and image bleed occuring sporadically, sifted with pseudo stills. My head was pleading and blurring like it was full of lightning.

Boiiippp! went the Skype popup box, and my invasive video chat intruder was gone, having never introduced or explained herself, and having formed a unique impression of the blogosphere and the ghosts, like me, who haunt it, scaring others away.

This is my domain.

I have many protections and shields, but the weakest spot in any defense is user behavior, vulnerable to social engineering.

Could this be a malicious intrusion? You programmers and internet experts out there, what do you think?


flic said...

You said you were "as if in a trance" and "in a trance", several times.

Was this a self-imposed trance on your part, or a trance imposed from an outside source?

steven edward streight said...

flic: my usage of the word "trance" is an artificial literary device known as word-trapping.

word-trapping is the using of a word repeatedly, in a satirical, sarcastic sense, for an intended, clandestine effect.

the reason i say "trance" is to be funny, to make people think something sinister happened, but to make light of it, to be silly about it.

my writing style is full of little innuendos, obscure figures of speech, and vague archaic idioms and non-standard Britishisms that I learn from Paul Woodhouse the Tinbasher blogger in UK.

flic said...

I should have known. So was your use of word-trapping self-imposed, or did it come from an outside source? Thanks for letting me know that it came from an outside source. I appreciate your answer.

And I like your language (and your conscious use of it), as every thing that is uttered says something that is caught in the vibrations. You may be interested in this post.

steven edward streight said...

my use of word-trapping with the word "trance" came from neither external nor internal sources.

text produces text.

flic said...

Yes, text produces text produces text produces text.

And my question still stands. Where does the original text come from -- an external or internal source?

steven edward streight said...

In fact, there is no source of text. Text, in form of emotion or thought, feelings or expressions, groans and scribblings, etchings, patterns, structure, just IS.

At least, this is what text seems to say about itself.

flic said...

Steven, I'd like to let you know that I'm asking you these questions because I respect your opinions.

So that's very interesting. Now what about the connection between text and emotion?

And then text becoming in the form of expressions and scribblings, as you say for example, or novels and documents?

Even if you say it just IS, this "just being IS" must appear from somewhere. Especially text. I might not be able to say the same about a tree or a bird, for example.

But text is to some degree humanly constructed. Therefore, unless the person writing or expressing in text is G-d, then the text isn't just IS, it is brought to it's conception from somewhere (and then perhaps it's merely perceived [in all too human jargon] as just IS).

Not that a text must have a meaning, per se, or a purpose. But if it is there, it did come from somewhere.

What are your thoughts?

steven edward streight said...

Text seems to state that thought cannot think the thought of origin of thought. Thought cannot imagine, nor articulate, its own origin, as the stomach cannot feed or digest itself.

steven edward streight said...

Our proof for thought being naturally unable to think the thought of the origin of thought, its insufficiency to identify or display in any fashion what makes it tick, what caused it:

the reluctance of language to state the question adequately.

Language looks in the mirror of thought and sees the mirror's reflections of mirroring, a nothingness, blank and empty, double mirroring, the boomerang image that screams: I Remain Unknown.

flic said...

But biologically and psychologically speaking, the stomach does feed and digest itself. It does indeed do this itself. The stomach helps the brain tell your hands to get some food and put it in your mouth, and the stomach does do the digesting whether you want it to or not.

So, thought can think the thought of origin of thought [i.e., origin of itself]. It just might not be right about what it thinks. The same way your hand might not be right about what food [e.g., healthy food / unhealthy food] it puts in your mouth.