Fake Steve decries “attacks”

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Ahh, this is funny. Fake Steve has been attacking bloggers, including me, for months. It’s funny. I loved it. But now Fake Steve is angry that people are trying to figure out who he is and is angry at Valleywag for attacking him. Ahh, as the gossip mags turn. The drama is fun. Maybe Dave Slusher would rather read all this entertaining copy than discover a new tool that might help make him some more friends? Me? I think it’s funny they are now attacking each other.

Published by Robert Scoble

I help entrepreneurs build their technology business' story, help with getting ready for investors, with other launch plans, and many other strategic things that can help your new startup. Call to talk: +1-425-205-1921 (text first).

Published

74 thoughts on “Fake Steve decries “attacks””

  1. 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/

    Like

  2. 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/

    Like

  3. 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?

    Like

  4. 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?

    Like

  21. 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.

    Like

  22. 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.

    Like

  23. 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.

    Like

  24. 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.

    Like

  27. 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?

    Like

  28. 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?

    Like

  29. 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.

    Like

  30. 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.

    Like

  33. “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?

    Like

  34. “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?

    Like

  41. 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.

    Like

  42. 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.

    Like

  43. 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.

    Like

  44. 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.

    Like

  45. “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.

    Like

  46. “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.

    Like

  47. 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.

    Like

  48. 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.

    Like

  49. 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.

    Like

  50. 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.

    Like

  53. Another thing to try with Fake Steve’s IP, assuming he’s posting from work. Try ips below and above that in the range.
    Offices that have net services need to bind at least 1 ip to another router for office computers to have access to the internet.

    So 216.109.112.135 could be the ip bind’ed for the office internet connections from another router.
    216.109.112.134 may be a mail server
    216.109.112.133 may be an internal server on LAN
    216.109.112.136 could be for other services.

    If you don’t get anything on nmap from the initial ip, try others in the range. If not he is probably not at work. Then you have to make a legal complaint to get the address via a subpoena. Which the person does not have a valid reason for.(apparently)

    I know they tried to get mini-microsoft for years without success. It would be nice to find out who at least 1 of these mystery people are.

    Like

  54. Another thing to try with Fake Steve’s IP, assuming he’s posting from work. Try ips below and above that in the range.
    Offices that have net services need to bind at least 1 ip to another router for office computers to have access to the internet.

    So 216.109.112.135 could be the ip bind’ed for the office internet connections from another router.
    216.109.112.134 may be a mail server
    216.109.112.133 may be an internal server on LAN
    216.109.112.136 could be for other services.

    If you don’t get anything on nmap from the initial ip, try others in the range. If not he is probably not at work. Then you have to make a legal complaint to get the address via a subpoena. Which the person does not have a valid reason for.(apparently)

    I know they tried to get mini-microsoft for years without success. It would be nice to find out who at least 1 of these mystery people are.

    Like

  57. @21: The problem is, we don’t actually know what he’s complaining about. Obviously, someone who openly puts himself in the pubic eye surrenders a lot of his privacy. But does that mean that someone who writes anonymously is fair game for any tactic?

    Like

  58. @21: The problem is, we don’t actually know what he’s complaining about. Obviously, someone who openly puts himself in the pubic eye surrenders a lot of his privacy. But does that mean that someone who writes anonymously is fair game for any tactic?

    Like

  61. @2, Ewan that is indeed my point. I’m not suffering from any lack of friends but of not being a good friend to the ones I already have. Like you, to whom I promised I’d do something for you in February and still haven’t done it yet. Thrashing from SNS to SNS does not get those things done for me. My whole point has always been about keeping how I spend my time in line with what matters to me.

    And Robert, I’ve never once read Valleywag. I could not possibly give less of a shit about it.

    Like

  62. @2, Ewan that is indeed my point. I’m not suffering from any lack of friends but of not being a good friend to the ones I already have. Like you, to whom I promised I’d do something for you in February and still haven’t done it yet. Thrashing from SNS to SNS does not get those things done for me. My whole point has always been about keeping how I spend my time in line with what matters to me.

    And Robert, I’ve never once read Valleywag. I could not possibly give less of a shit about it.

    Like

  63. Save “Fake Steve Jobs” from being outted.

    FSJ has a real job and real career. He blog’s as FSJ as a creative outlet but he probably wouldn’t if his identity was known.

    No you may think that outting him is fair because he attacks in his satire… it’s a complex attack because he’s attacking targets he believes the Real Steve Jobs would attack, so, the intent is complex. Does FSJ really think Scoble is a blockhead? Who can say. But he thinks Steve Jobs might hold tht view.

    So… if FSJ is outted by a seeker of truth like Nick Denton then who really looses? FSJ’s or the readers who love his work. FSJ will still be a creative person who may have to re-structure his career but the readers will have less talent in the world of blogs…

    Let FSJ stay fake, I say. And cut the writer some slack for not really owning the words. It’s called satire and it must be run through multiple filters to get anything close to truth out of it… but it’s so entertaining. And in a way, it’s closer to some levels of truth than real journalism. It deals in motivations and the deep psychology of power that facts can’t really convey: it’s about behavior and gestures (hat tip to the real original “Bad Sinatra” Steve).

    Like

  64. Save “Fake Steve Jobs” from being outted.

    FSJ has a real job and real career. He blog’s as FSJ as a creative outlet but he probably wouldn’t if his identity was known.

    No you may think that outting him is fair because he attacks in his satire… it’s a complex attack because he’s attacking targets he believes the Real Steve Jobs would attack, so, the intent is complex. Does FSJ really think Scoble is a blockhead? Who can say. But he thinks Steve Jobs might hold tht view.

    So… if FSJ is outted by a seeker of truth like Nick Denton then who really looses? FSJ’s or the readers who love his work. FSJ will still be a creative person who may have to re-structure his career but the readers will have less talent in the world of blogs…

    Let FSJ stay fake, I say. And cut the writer some slack for not really owning the words. It’s called satire and it must be run through multiple filters to get anything close to truth out of it… but it’s so entertaining. And in a way, it’s closer to some levels of truth than real journalism. It deals in motivations and the deep psychology of power that facts can’t really convey: it’s about behavior and gestures (hat tip to the real original “Bad Sinatra” Steve).

    Like

  65. PS> I faked “Dave Winer” once in a blog piece. He didn’t think it was funny. People “fake” targets that are bigger than life (or think they are).

    Like

  66. PS> I faked “Dave Winer” once in a blog piece. He didn’t think it was funny. People “fake” targets that are bigger than life (or think they are).

    Like

  67. Oops, I inadvertently directed my comment (#29), at #21. I meant to reply to David McElroy, #22.

    Like

  68. Oops, I inadvertently directed my comment (#29), at #21. I meant to reply to David McElroy, #22.

    Like

  69. “He blog’s as FSJ as a creative outlet but he probably wouldn’t if his identity was known.”

    I know who FSJ is and I can *guarantee* that once he’s outed, he’ll stop writing the blog.

    And, Robert, as to “But now Fake Steve is angry that people are trying to figure out who he is and is angry at Valleywag for attacking him.”? Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just *maybe*, that’s part of the joke?

    Like

  70. “He blog’s as FSJ as a creative outlet but he probably wouldn’t if his identity was known.”

    I know who FSJ is and I can *guarantee* that once he’s outed, he’ll stop writing the blog.

    And, Robert, as to “But now Fake Steve is angry that people are trying to figure out who he is and is angry at Valleywag for attacking him.”? Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just *maybe*, that’s part of the joke?

    Like

  71. “Fake Steve is HARDLY ethical.”

    What is unethical about satire?

    “I’d fire the guy if I learned he worked for me.”

    And people wonder why he wants to stay anonymous…..

    Like

  72. “Fake Steve is HARDLY ethical.”

    What is unethical about satire?

    “I’d fire the guy if I learned he worked for me.”

    And people wonder why he wants to stay anonymous…..

    Like

  73. @Shawn King
    “What is unethical about satire?”

    My sentiment exactly.

    If FSJ is unethical, I suppose Jonathan Swift must have been one of the most unethical people in the eighteenth century.

    Like

  74. @Shawn King
    “What is unethical about satire?”

    My sentiment exactly.

    If FSJ is unethical, I suppose Jonathan Swift must have been one of the most unethical people in the eighteenth century.

    Like

Comments are closed.