In advance, my use of the word "stalker" is not intended to belittle any real-life stalking issues that are much more serious.

I tend to view the Web and the interactions I have with people online optimistically, trusting first and dismissing only after repeat offenses through odd comments or bad behavior. As Cyndy's article from Sunday mentioned, there are bad people out there who have troll-like behavior, whose aim it is to disrupt your life, add frustration and intimidate, but those can usually be tossed out like rubbish. But I've had the most odd experience with one individual this year, who would contact me almost every single day, by e-mail, by social networks and by phone, and couldn't be shooed away by any normal social standards. This individual, despite being told I had no interest in their venture, and that I was uncomfortable with their continued outreach, followed me from Facebook to FriendFeed to Twitter to GMail to my cell phone and back, and has been a bizarre thorn in my side for about four months. I thought I'd show you some of their handiwork without giving away who they are, and so you can see how my attempts to be civil gave the individual the wrong idea.

The individual's art of being a borderline Web stalker in this case was to at first appear friendly, and interested in me as an individual or as a future colleague. What started out as a respectful exchange then saw odd cracks in their mental togetherness as I would get one liners that dismissed me and then came crawling back in days, and each time I'd try to end the conversation, one more would come in its place.

This person first started making comments on my blog back in March, and added me as someone to follow on FriendFeed and Twitter soon after. Their comments, at the time, seemed upbeat and usually thoughtful. By May, they reached out on Facebook, trying to start a more direct relationship:

On May 13, I got a note:

"What is a good time for me to call you (or you call me)?"

No big deal, or so I thought. We talked, and they sent follow-on e-mails by Facebook on May 15, 16, 17 (twice). By the 19th, they were probably 80% of the total messages I got on Facebook, since I rarely use the service. The fact I'd given them any attention made them think I was clearly looking to join their team, leading to the following note:

"When we close the initial round of financing, I am interested in interviewing you, if you wish, for our Director of Websites Experience and Operations/SVP position. It pays well into six figures and includes stock options."

I communicated I was flattered, but not interested. On the 20th, I got four more e-mails via Facebook, and on the 21st, I got the same message again. Then, on May 22nd, as one of four more messages that day, a quick note: "I hope all is well."

This was typical, and while not negative, a ploy to get me engaged again.

As I was now in the habit of ignoring most of their Facebook notes, by May 30, I got a message: "Interview is cancelled due to lack of your response." and the next day, a spiteful barb: "I have high standards. I have tried to be helpful to you as well."

So I thought we were done. Guess not. Because the next day, June 1st, I got a note:

"Together we would be stronger."

Ooh. Just past the creep-o-meter. And the next day, regarding my not joining his team and staying solo:

"Do you feel that your go it alone tendency is holding you back (I do, but what you think is what matters)."

The next day:

"I want to work with you because I believe that you are very talented."

And by June 4:

"I hope that all is well. Sometimes I think that you are wrong, and sometimes I think that I am. I can be impatient and a little demanding."

Stupid me, trying to be nice, I responded and offered to help with a side project. My mistake. When I didn't follow up after another e-mail in 24 hours, as I was busy with my real-world job, I got another note...

"I changed my mind about including you."

At this point, I was elated. So I removed them as a friend in Facebook, hoping the email flow would stop. Wrong.

On June 10, they noticed.

"If you apparently, it seems, took me off as a Facebook friend. I only work with very successful people!"

And on the 17th, a cryptic:

"Louis - I was wrong before."

At this point, realizing they weren't going away, I wrote back:

"On what part? Wrong on reaching out, or wrong on turning away. You keep going back and forth, and this constant stream of Facebook items got to be too much. More than 80% of my Facebook e-mail is from you. :-) I want (and wanted) to be supportive for sure, but I wanted to reduce the every day pinging. I thought pulling your Friend status on Facebook would do that, but it didn't. What's happened is that this stopped being collaborative and started looking more like stalking."

A sampling of the Facebook notes from my Mail from this person.
This, in turn, led to more daily e-mails, almost all one-sided. Some were positive, congratulating us on the arrival of twins, or responding to blog posts. And at that point, at the end of June, things seemed to dry up, as they were kicked off Facebook, for adding too many friends. You'd think that'd be the end, but they they turned to GMail, and calling my cell phone (the one on this blog), again, every day.

On July 3 via GMail:

"Louis - We're close to our financing so I may be able to bring you on full time shortly."

On July 4:

"Louis - What will help you reach the next level of course you're doing well already."

And then later that day:

"Louis - I'm not interested in working together anymore."

I said, simply, "Alright - appreciate the update.", hoping that was the end of it.

But two weeks later:

"It was a lack of communication on your part that made me determine that we could not work together. Sometimes, as individuals, we feel that we do not wish to communicate. And there is a place for that. But we need to overcome that also, if you agree, to form higher and more successful connections."

You'd think the continued notes about being done and not working together would be the end, but I started getting phone calls every day.

My cell phone history shows calls on:

• July 23rd at 12:48 p.m.
  
• July 25th at 11:32 a.m.
  
• July 26th at 10:25 a.m.
  
• July 29th at 10:53 a.m.
  
• July 30th at 9:53 a.m.
  
• July 31st at 9:40 a.m.

In between the daily calls, on the 28th, I got a note on GMail again:

"Louis - I hope all is well. Busy, I am sure!"

And again, I said I was uncomfortable with the pursuit:

"Busy for sure. I get your daily phone calls. Appreciate the attention, but I'm still feeling stalked."

But then, Friday, August 1:

"Do you want to join us?"

Followed by another note later that day, from them, no less:

"Are you stalking me? Please do not contact me anymore."

Outstanding, I guess. In the space of about three months, this person sent at least 49 messages on Facebook, and about 20 more on GMail, and called several dozen times. Yet, somehow, despite all the clues that they were no longer interested in communicating, and the other comments complaining that I hadn't responded or responded quickly enough, that I somehow was the stalker and I was the one being asked not contact them any more. And while I could be optimistic and say that this last note means I'll never hear from them again, I have no confidence in that, as every other note saying they were done was followed by more nonsense. And if it hadn't already, I'm sure this post will fire them up again, lucky me.

I made a few mistakes in this process. First, I was open to talking, being friendly with a person who I barely knew. The world of online social networks makes this commonplace. Later, feeling bad for ignoring all their messages, and wanting to not sound like a jerk, I had offered to help on a side-project, when I should have just blocked them outright on Facebook. I should have tried to be less nice from the very beginning and made it clear that under no circumstances was I interested in their project, or joining them. But at this point, I tend to believe any rational decision I would have made would be overrun by their instability, which was made clear by the complete 180s you can see above from message to message. This wasn't an aggressive entrepreneur looking to get a strong staff. It was a individual with borderline obsessive behavior who for whatever reason thought I was a must-recruit.

I've been lucky enough that the overwhelming majority of communications and relationships I've built online have been positive, and I've met some great people. But this months-long incident and the potential for more like it have me hesitant about being too friendly too fast. I'm lucky that I haven't seen the hatred and negativity that some have encountered, and I've not been in fear of any physical harm, but this has gone on too long. Have you ever run into something like this, and how do you get out of it?

By Cyndy Aleo-Carreira of Shakespeare I Ain't (E-mail / Twitter)

The New York Times Magazine piece called The Trolls Among Us has been the talk of the tech blogosphere since its online release on Friday. There are those who feel it's an amazing piece of investigative journalism. Others are shocked that trolls who've been well-known by deed if not by name, have finally been revealed, including those who harrassed Kathy Sierra. I happen to be in a third camp. I'm disappointed in the Gray Lady for giving trolls a voice.

When Andy Warhol famously declared that in the future, everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, he had no idea that the Internet would be the platform that would make his quote a reality. While few people will ever achieve the fame that comes along with being a film star or world leader, the Web had provided a world stage where anyone who figures out how to be completely over the top at something can have those 15 minutes.

The Times piece has proven exactly that point. These trolls, who purport to carry on their activities for whatever random purpose suits them at the time, are just as desperate for attention as anyone else seeking Internet fame. The allure of being interviewed by such a well-known paper was obviously too attractive to turn down. If the purpose of trolling was really a psychological experiment or however those interviewed chose to spin it, then why agree to expose themselves if not for the egoboo of fame?

Somewhere, deep inside most of us, exists the need to be recognized for something, anything. But in this Web culture where anything goes much of the time, we seem to forget that most people become famous for doing something productive. The old-school Hollywood royalty was famous for making entertaining films, not flashing their uncovered crotches getting out of cars. As bloggers, we are slowly heading into more of the tabloid-esque coverage that has resulted in the craze for celebrity car crash videos and drunken fall photos. As users, we seem inexorably drawn toward gaining as much attention for ourselves as we can. The Times may have done it in a more traditional medium, but until we go back to covering successes and those doing good in the tech space, we may as well be the next Enquirer.

As a sometimes smug Mac user for the overwhelming majority of my computer-using life, virus warnings, anti-virus software and security updates were always something "those other guys" had to deal with. Using my Mac, I would even have colleagues send me attachments from their Windows machines which they thought were viruses, so I could open them up in a text editor and see what mischief they had intended to cause. But today, I realized my laptop had somehow acquired a rare trojan that does hit Mac OS X, and the results of the bugger were actually more harmful for Allen Stern of CenterNetworks than they were for me. Oops.

This morning, Allen Stern presented a new video following a press conference he held that discussed his take on the "firing" of my son Matthew, who had secured a short-lived position in CenterNetworks' San Francisco bureau. As usual, Stern's tongue-in-cheek humor and deadpan delivery were very good. The conclusion reached by his video was that Matthew would be compensated out of court with the delivery of an "I love New York" t-shirt, and I quickly commented on his site that we agreed to the settlement.

But amusingly, having posted my comment, I noticed that virtually all of the ads on Allen's site were for pills that solved erectile dysfunction, and all the banners were rotating images of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra, which made no sense on Allen's tech blog, and had absolutely zero to do with his story on my kid. So, I made screenshots, and jokingly sent a note to FriendFeed, saying, “I Just Hope the Money from these Ads Keeps CN "Up".


CenterNetworks' Ads Were All In Pill Form for Me
Allen, looking at the pictures and then back at his site, thought I was joking. But I wasn't. When he realized I was serious, this set off a flurry of calls by him to his advertising partners, swapping out of ads, and testing both on his side and mine, as we tried to figure out... was it him, or was it me?

Turns out it was all me, and separated by 3,000 miles, I was causing Allen's blood pressure to rise for no good reason. It turned out that at some point, recently, some file I downloaded hijacked my DNS settings on my MacBook Pro, and selectively overlaid his banner ads from Tribal Fusion, on both CenterNetworks and HTMLCenter, with these stupid Viagra ads. Meanwhile, my wife's laptop was fine, showing normal ads, while I was viewing the world through an odd filter.

So, I did some searching on the Web and found I had likely run into one of the few pieces of known Mac OS X malware out there, a Trojan, which disguised itself as a clean file. So, I decided to finally get some real anti-virus software to take a look at it, and found a solution from Intego called Virus Barrier, which looked a lot more Mac-friendly than dreck the Symantec guys offer. Sure enough, after paying to buy their software, installing, and rebooting, the offending file was found, masquerading as a QuickTime extension. The Intego software let me delete it, and all of a sudden, all was well. Allen's site now shows normal ads, and he doesn't carry the mark of a dope dealer.


Intego Virus Barrier Going Through My Files


Aha! A trojan has been located and destroyed!
Of course, this now raises the question... how did I get this on my machine? Some of the stories I read said the trojan could have been hiding in the form of a fake card game application, and others, as a tool that lets you watch adult videos. So... neither one of those makes sense. But despite that mystery, the good news is that I think it's all resolved. I have a product that will protect my Mac in the future if anything like this happens again, and I still know Allen Stern is on the up and up - a great blogger with a good sense of humor and values as well. It's just disappointing my stupid error somewhere dragged him through the mud through my "learning process".

If you use Google Reader as your online RSS reader, you're no doubt familiar with the ability to share an item to your shared link blog. For example, mine can be found here.

Earlier this year, the Reader team added the ability to post a "Note" to your share items. The idea of Google Reader Notes is that you introduce friends who subscribe to your link blog to the story you've shared, explaining why you found it interesting.

As a subscriber to some shared link blogs, it's growing increasingly common that I am seeing Notes posted, and sometimes, these Notes are authored by "friends of a friend", whom I am not subscribed to myself. For example, I recently saw a note that Jesse Stay posted on a WebWare.com article, shared in Robert Scoble's link blog. This means the WebWare.com story was originally shared by Jesse Stay, then shared by Robert Scoble, and then read by me.

Item's Source: Jesse Stay → Robert Scoble → Louis Gray
As more people are subscribing to Google Reader link blogs, I bet this is happening everywhere. So here's an experiment I would like to try:

1. I will share this article with a note.
   
2. The note will request you also share the item and say where you got it.
   
3. In your note, request those subscribed to you also share it add their name and keep your original text.

In theory, a Google Reader shared item, as it gets reshared from person to person, could be as viral as the old-school offline chain letter, with the most-recent recipient having absolutely no connection to the original sharer, except for the connection path.

So why don't we give this a try? As RSSmeme tracks shared items with notes, we could see a variety of paths the shared link took to get to you, and we could see a number of interesting "comments" on FriendFeed that show the route of the item.

I'll go first. This could of course fail due to a small number of Google Reader users who use notes, my continued obscurity, and disinterest, but I'm willing to give it a shot.