Fake Steve decries “attacks”

There certainly is some irony in this.

I am kinda curious who/what has been done to “cross-the-line” … but jeeze Fake Steve … didn’t you think people would try to figure out who you are?

If nothing else, nice move by Fake Steve to generate controversy and a story – he/she has been very, very good at that … and does write some darn good/funny dramatic stuff.

BTW, if that soap opera isn’t exciting enough for you, swing on by to watch the outside of my house get painted … on a live webcam! Now I just need Scoble to drop in and say HI on the webcam …

http://www.watching-paint-dry.com/

Surely Dave’s point was that he doesn’t want new friends and tools, he wants to concentrate on the close circle of people he already knows?

I am the real Fake Steve Jobs.

I am also the first real Fake Steve Jobs!

I am the real Fake Steve Jobs!

I am the ORIGINAL real Fake Steve Jobs!

I am also the FIRST ORIGINAL real Fake Steve Jobs!!

I am not fake steve jobs.

This sounds like an episode of to tell the truth haha.

You gotta feel bad for the guy though

Wow, guys, can I quote you on my site? Especially Dave! Dave, please tell me you are not joking?

Wow, guys, can I quote you on my site? Especially Dave! Dave, please tell me you are not joking?

It sounds like he’s talking about something that borders on invasion of privacy or unethical behavior, which is hardly the same thing as criticizing another blogger.

Someone set a trap for him that caused him to reveal his IP address. Hardly an invasion of privacy. Anyone who wants to do a fake blog should expect full-bore attempts to find out their identity anyway. Especially people who take shots at other people. Fake Steve is HARDLY ethical. I’d fire the guy if I learned he worked for me.

Hey Scoble,

Here is the info on Apple’s tech talks for third party iPhone developers(you had a post earlier on Apple’s lack of interest in iPhone developers)

http://developer.apple.com/events/iphone/techtalks/

It’s not clear to me that the trap you mention is what he’s complaining about. He’s complaining about Valleywag, but that trap was set by another group, Sitening, outside of Valleywag, and somebody, not valleywag, posted a Google Earth photo of the location of the IP address.

What exactly do you find unethical about FSJ, by the way?

I wonder if he is just blowing up nothing of real consequence for self-aggrandizement. When reading this, I couldn’t help but think of Chavez constantly telling his people that the United States was trying to kill him in order to gain attention, elevate his status, and demonize “the big guys”– all as a tactic to gain support and power. It worked.

No details. No evidence. Just nervous-sounding innuendo that sounds feigned to me. Why even bring this up, esp. if there really are all these professionals on the case, which I seriously doubt, unless the guy’s rich.

“Private eyes”??? “on the lam”??? This reads like a badly written dime novel. Something is fishy here.

I’m curious as to what is unethical about FSJ, too.

“Dave Slusher would rather read all this entertaining copy than discover a new tool that might help make him some more friends” – can’t Scoble give it a rest already, or does he have some sort of vendetta against someone who chose to stop subscribing to his blog?

Just like when you used to be mini-microsoft

soon the person behind fake steve jobs blog will be revealed and … believe me… it will be then THE END for that blog.

I am the real mini-microsoft.

I do realize that you are not exactly a sharp crayon, but do consider the possibility of Valleywag, creating it, hyping it, drama-queening it up and then “outting it”, all as a ploy.

As people argue about whether or not an “invasion of privacy” has occurred, be sure to remember that there is no real definition of this vague term. It doesn’t have much of a legal meaning, so it’s more about a social definition. Most people would agree that a person who minds his own business and doesn’t put himself out there in the public has a reasonable expectation of SOME degree of privacy. However, when an anonymous person creates an intentional public sensation by mocking the personality and life of another public figure, what sane person would expect that the anonymous person has the “right” to remain unknown and unpursued?

If you put yourself out there in public, you expect to lose some degree of privacy. It just comes with the territory. The person behind FSJ has played his role to the hilt, and he’s used his anonymity to get attention. If you’re going to play this game, you have to expect that people are going to come after you. I have no idea if there’s anything other than the “IP trap” at issue, but it’s impossible to feel sorry for the guy or be impressed with his privacy argument when he’s gone to great lengths to publicize his fictitious character.

“Someone set a trap for him that caused him to reveal his IP address.”

A trap?

All you have to do is provide a link in comments, then check your Apache logs to see who clicked it with that referrer. Hoping nobody else clicks it.

BUT, so what? What will having an IP address accomplish?
Unless it was the RIAA that was trying to unmask him, they are going to have a hard time pulling a name from an IP. Unless there is an HTTP server there.
If he was doing it from an office where they put the IP in the browser and got NAME info back, then fine, he’s busted. If he was doing it from home, then it will be really difficult.

Longtime FSJ readers may remember a couple previous posts where he seemed to be freaking out, and it turned out to be a joke. Specifically, the time he implied that Apple’s attorneys were after him, and he disappeared for a few days. Also, the time he said he was shutting down because he couldn’t get sponsors.

If fake Steve was indeed at the office and that was his work IP, but there was no HTTP server, port scan the IP with nmap and tcp connect to any open service at his job’s IP net, trying to get name information in a handshake response.

Normally offices have so many services open you’re bound to get some identifying info back.

Again, assuming he was at work. Assuming he has a job.