Brian Dunning lawsuit

[Mick West]

If it was less than the full amount then how did he not profit? Legal fees?

I don't know the percentages, but I mean he's going to prison for a year, that's a lot of potential lost income and goodwill, not to mention it's going to suck.

If he hadn't done the cookie stuffing thing, and instead focussed his efforts elsewhere, then I suspect he'd be a lot better off in the long run. That's what I mean by not profiting.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm not very familiar with this guy (I may or may not have transcribed a podcast of his for pay in the past but that's about it).

Aside from the fraud, what I can't get over is the fact that he was asking for donations for his podcast. He was even making hundreds of thousands per year before the fraud. So here we have a guy who absolutely did not need more money than he already had willing to resort to ebegging and stealing to get more of it. And he's never stopped asking for more more more. From what little I've learned about him he strikes me as a consistently greedy and unscrupulous individual, not just a guy who made a mistake.

Last year, he was running some sort of Kickstarter to transcribe some of his articles into a book, and he needed money, and then volunteers to pack the books for shipment, or....something. I don't recall all the details. Anyhow, he was organizing a book packing party at his home, featuring drinks and skeptical conversation. Well, I should be more accurate about the first part. It only included drinks for those people who brought their own booze. Yes, you heard that right....it was BYOB.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If it was less than the full amount then how did he not profit? Legal fees?

Presumably. At least that's what he wants us to believe.

But remember, he is going to prison for fraud.

 

[Meed]

But he saved Chinese tourists!

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm quite frankly amazed that people are linking to Skepchick as a "fair and balanced" analysis of the situation. It isn't. It's as blatantly, hostilely partisan as you can get. Skepchick clearly, obviously, has some kind of an axe to grind here, and they're grinding it as hard as they can grind.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm quite frankly amazed that people are linking to Skepchick as a "fair and balanced" analysis of the situation. It isn't. It's as blatantly, hostilely partisan as you can get. Skepchick clearly, obviously, has some kind of an axe to grind here, and they're grinding it as hard as they can grind.

Which part is inaccurate?

 

[Meed]

I'm quite frankly amazed that people are linking to Skepchick as a "fair and balanced" analysis of the situation. It isn't. It's as blatantly, hostilely partisan as you can get. Skepchick clearly, obviously, has some kind of an axe to grind here, and they're grinding it as hard as they can grind.

Even blatantly hostilely partisan people are correct once in awhile. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but considering what he's admitted to in the FBI interview, this seems pretty clear cut.

 

[arthwollipot]

Which part is inaccurate?

I don't know the facts of the case, so I can't necessarily say with authority that such-and-such a statement is inaccurate. What Rebecca has written is interesting, certainly, and it certainly fills out some of what Dunning has made in his "official" statement. Which is true? I don't know. However, you can absolutely put a spin on truth, and this is what I believe Skepchick is doing. Notice, in fact, that not once in Rebecca's analysis does she say "Brian is wrong about this" or "this is a lie". Most of it consists of pointing out things that Brian omitted from his statement. Both statements can be true without contradiction. However, the Skepchick statement is clearly intended to discourage people from supporting Dunning in any way.

I don't believe that Skepchick - particularly with their history of hostility towards Dunning in general - can possibly be considered an objective commentator on this subject. Skepchick is not, and has never been, a non-political non-partisan dispassionate disinterested reporter of facts. They have an agenda, and in this case their agenda is anti-Dunning. The final sentence shows Rebecca's clear bias. She doesn't like him, and you shouldn't too.

But as someone recently said, this is the Internet - which means that either you're with us, or you're literally Hitler.

 

[hardindr]

It's very simple...

The facts of the case are laid out very well in all of the court documents, particularly the FBI interview of Dunning. If people want to stick their heads in the sand, or make excuses for Dunning, then that reflects poorly on them and shows what behavior they are willing to put up with when it serves their purposes. Looking at a lot of statements being made on Facebook and elsewhere about Dunning makes me wonder if a lot of people's claims to want to "Fight the Fakers/Frauds" is real or a lot hot air. This has been a very eye-opening experience for me.

 

[Morrigan]

I'm quite frankly amazed that people are linking to Skepchick as a "fair and balanced" analysis of the situation. It isn't. It's as blatantly, hostilely partisan as you can get. Skepchick clearly, obviously, has some kind of an axe to grind here, and they're grinding it as hard as they can grind.

Wow, really? You're going with blatant ad hominem/well poisoning here? Go ahead and refute the parts of her article that you think are wrong or inaccurate, instead of calling her "partisan". Even if it's true that she has a personal beef with Dunning (and I see no evidence of that right now), that wouldn't make her smackdown any less true.

I like how you focus on that and completely ignore the points being made. Do you also call Dunning to task for posting that self-serving partisan nonpology? I guess it's only bad if Rebecca does it, or something.

The facts of the case are laid out very well in all of the court documents, particularly the FBI interview of Dunning. If people want to stick their heads in the sand, or make excuses for Dunning, then that reflects poorly on them and shows what behavior they are willing to put up with when it serves their purposes.

Sure seems like it. Pathetic, really.

 

[icerat]

I don't know the facts of the case, so I can't necessarily say with authority that such-and-such a statement is inaccurate.

I've read all of the available court documents regarding both his and Hogan's case and am extremely familiar with the technological issues involved. Rebecca's post is wholly accurate.

What Rebecca has written is interesting, certainly, and it certainly fills out some of what Dunning has made in his "official" statement. Which is true? I don't know. However, you can absolutely put a spin on truth, and this is what I believe Skepchick is doing. Notice, in fact, that not once in Rebecca's analysis does she say "Brian is wrong about this" or "this is a lie".

Yeah, she did -

I assume Dunning ran this statement past his lawyer, which is why I’m stunned to see what appears to be an outright lie.

She is correct, what Dunning said about KFC driving that many $$$ of customers to ebay is false.

 

[Cuddles]

I don't know the facts of the case

The facts of the case have already been linked in this thread. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with them before complaining about people commenting on them?

Notice, in fact, that not once in Rebecca's analysis does she say "Brian is wrong about this" or "this is a lie".

OK, she never uses those exact words. Is that seriously the best you can do? She does point out several points on which Brian clearly is lying. For example:

That any individuals were affected. Completely false. The only victim was eBay, and the nature of their loss was a reduced profit (due to paying an unearned sales commission) on new paying customers who had viewed one of our ads.

I can think of individuals who were affected: honest affiliates. Dunning didn’t “just” steal money from eBay (note: not liking the victim doesn’t make the crime better). He took money that was meant for others. Cookie-stuffing overwrites any previous cookies from affiliates who may have succeeded in getting users to visit eBay, meaning that Dunning would collect commissions that were rightfully owed to honest individuals.

Brian knows very well that individuals were affected and not just eBay, and he deliberately lied in claiming that was not the case. Rebecca doesn't need to use the exact words "this is a lie" in order to point that out.

Most of it consists of pointing out things that Brian omitted from his statement.

I don't believe you can be unfamiliar with the idea of lies of omission. For example, failing to mention that his "company" consisted only of him and his family and was run from his house, and that the "costs" said company had to cover from its millions in income were solely pay for family members. Are you really trying to say that you can see nothing dishonest about talking about mergers, costs, overhead, and so on while failing to mention that what you actually mean is "my family got some of the stolen money as well"?

Here's something Rebecca said that you should really pay attention to:

One of the reasons why I enjoy skepticism as a tool is because it does not (or should not) discriminate.

I don't like Rebecca at all. That does not mean everything she says is false. In this case, everything she says has already been said in this thread with supporting links to the actual case documents. Brian Dunning is a liar and fraud, and his latest statement is just another example of him trying to pretend that he's being treated unfairly just because he got caught. No amount of disliking Rebecca Watson can change that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Please do not patronise me. I am as capable of reading as you are.

Like I said, because I am not joining in the Dunning-hate, I am now presumably just as bad a he is. I am clearly a fraud-supporter. Or Hitler, it's hard to tell.

Sorry if my opinions don't please you. I believe that the good he has done for the community over the years more than outweighs any harm he has done to it. He broke the law, and he is paying for it. That doesn't make him a demon.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to say this. The community as a whole has made up its collective mind that he is anathema with no possibility of redemption. Personally, I believe in second chances.

Since it is clearly an unpopular move to refrain from the collective hate, this is all I will say on the subject.

 

[icerat]

He broke the law, and he is paying for it. That doesn't make him a demon.

I have my own biases against BD after I experienced him asking me for evidence of some comments I made on his blog that were contrary to claims in one of his podcasts. I provided them, and they mysteriously disappeared and comments were closed.

I also suffered extreme business damage (I lost millions) in the earlier days of the internet because of people who were doing similar things to Dunning and making it virtually impossible for people trying to operate ethically to remain competitive. Many of those people too ended up in jail but it didn't restore the damage.

Needless to say, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to say this. The community as a whole has made up its collective mind that he is anathema with no possibility of redemption. Personally, I believe in second chances.

There's plenty of people defending him in many places, as well as condemning. Here on this forum most people don't seem to care enough either way. Same thing with Shawn Hogan if you hang around Digital Point and related areas.

I think Dunning is being his own worst enemy now though, with an apparent utter lack of any real remorse and a deal of excuse making. He would have been far better served with a short statement admitting he made a mistake and was suffering the consequences. Instead he gives the impression he doesn't feel like he made a mistake at all.

 

[krelnik]

Which part is inaccurate?

One inaccuracy I just noticed: Rebecca strongly implies that anyone who supports Dunning in any way should be ashamed of themselves, we should all publicly renounce him, etc. She even implies that skeptics who say nothing public about the case are wrong in some way. Of course the presumption is she's abiding by that.

A commenter pointed out that she chatted with him amiably in a January 2013 episode of SGU. She then claims she didn't learn of his case until 5 months after that.

I have copies of emails that were sent to the Skepchick discussion back-channel on June 18, 2011 revealing Dunning's indictment.

I've pointed this out in a comment, I'm sure I'll be treated like **** again for it. It's happened every time I've been publicly skeptical of something Rebecca (or PZ, or anyone else in that circle) has posted.

 

[tsig]

The facts of the case are laid out very well in all of the court documents, particularly the FBI interview of Dunning. If people want to stick their heads in the sand, or make excuses for Dunning, then that reflects poorly on them and shows what behavior they are willing to put up with when it serves their purposes. Looking at a lot of statements being made on Facebook and elsewhere about Dunning makes me wonder if a lot of people's claims to want to "Fight the Fakers/Frauds" is real or a lot hot air. This has been a very eye-opening experience for me.

They want to fight the fakers and frauds as long as they're not on their side, if they're on your side you defend them even when they are convicted of fraud in court, kinda reminds me of the religious types who will defend their preacher even if he's caught with his hand in their spouses pants/panties.

 

[tsig]

I don't know the facts of the case, so I can't necessarily say with authority that such-and-such a statement is inaccurate. What Rebecca has written is interesting, certainly, and it certainly fills out some of what Dunning has made in his "official" statement. Which is true? I don't know. However, you can absolutely put a spin on truth, and this is what I believe Skepchick is doing. Notice, in fact, that not once in Rebecca's analysis does she say "Brian is wrong about this" or "this is a lie". Most of it consists of pointing out things that Brian omitted from his statement. Both statements can be true without contradiction. However, the Skepchick statement is clearly intended to discourage people from supporting Dunning in any way.

I don't believe that Skepchick - particularly with their history of hostility towards Dunning in general - can possibly be considered an objective commentator on this subject. Skepchick is not, and has never been, a non-political non-partisan dispassionate disinterested reporter of facts. They have an agenda, and in this case their agenda is anti-Dunning. The final sentence shows Rebecca's clear bias. She doesn't like him, and you shouldn't too.

But as someone recently said, this is the Internet - which means that either you're with us, or you're literally Hitler.

Please do not patronise me. I am as capable of reading as you are. Like I said, because I am not joining in the Dunning-hate, I am now presumably just as bad a he is. I am clearly a fraud-supporter. Or Hitler, it's hard to tell.

Sorry if my opinions don't please you. I believe that the good he has done for the community over the years more than outweighs any harm he has done to it. He broke the law, and he is paying for it. That doesn't make him a demon.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to say this. The community as a whole has made up its collective mind that he is anathema with no possibility of redemption. Personally, I believe in second chances.

Since it is clearly an unpopular move to refrain from the collective hate, this is all I will say on the subject.

Then do so.

Yep sounds like an apology for any fallen religious leader.

"He done good so let's ignore the evil"

Even in religion you don't get redemption til you acknowledge guilt and are truly sorry for it not sorry because you got caught.


If someone stole my wallet I wouldn't give him a chance to do it again.

 

[tsig]

I have my own biases against BD after I experienced him asking me for evidence of some comments I made on his blog that were contrary to claims in one of his podcasts. I provided them, and they mysteriously disappeared and comments were closed.

I also suffered extreme business damage (I lost millions) in the earlier days of the internet because of people who were doing similar things to Dunning and making it virtually impossible for people trying to operate ethically to remain competitive. Many of those people too ended up in jail but it didn't restore the damage.

Needless to say, I don't have a lot of sympathy.



There's plenty of people defending him in many places, as well as condemning. Here on this forum most people don't seem to care enough either way. Same thing with Shawn Hogan if you hang around Digital Point and related areas.

I think Dunning is being his own worst enemy now though, with an apparent utter lack of any real remorse and a deal of excuse making. He would have been far better served with a short statement admitting he made a mistake and was suffering the consequences. Instead he gives the impression he doesn't feel like he made a mistake at all.

I'm sure he's profoundly sorry he got caught and resolves to do better next time.

 

[John Nowak]

They want to fight the fakers and frauds as long as they're not on their side, if they're on your side you defend them even when they are convicted of fraud in court, kinda reminds me of the religious types who will defend their preacher even if he's caught with his hand in their spouses pants/panties.

I'm inclined to agree.

Dunning's been convicted of a crime with no gray side to it, nothing to justify it ethically. This isn't like helping someone evade being deported; it's not even breaking federal laws in part because you believe those laws are unjust. It's not deceiving someone with the object of proving they can be deceived and revealing the con as soon as possible. Based on the conviction, Dunning stole from Ebay affiliates because he wanted money and he could.

I think most methodologies and craft, including skepticism and software developers, have some form of implicit ethics. Scientists don't fake data if they're good scientists. Good software testers don't lie about tests they ran. Ethical software developers don't write code to steal money. Skeptics don't lie - or if they do, they need a damn good reason. "I want more money" is not a damn good reason.

If you're a personal friend or family, I think you get a pass if you defend him, but understand that carries very little weight.

If there's more to the story, say "I am not guilty, but I was afraid I would be found guilty, so I plead guilty to a lesser crime" or something like that, I'll be happy to revisit my opinions.

Otherwise, I think it is fair to say that Dunning has proven he likes money more than he likes the truth. Anything he says in the past or future needs to be weighed against that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't know the facts of the case, so I can't necessarily say with authority that such-and-such a statement is inaccurate. What Rebecca has written is interesting, certainly, and it certainly fills out some of what Dunning has made in his "official" statement. Which is true? I don't know. However, you can absolutely put a spin on truth, and this is what I believe Skepchick is doing. Notice, in fact, that not once in Rebecca's analysis does she say "Brian is wrong about this" or "this is a lie". Most of it consists of pointing out things that Brian omitted from his statement. Both statements can be true without contradiction. However, the Skepchick statement is clearly intended to discourage people from supporting Dunning in any way.

Example #1: Dunning states that "There are a lot of untruths being circulated by bloggers and reporters...That any individuals were affected. Completely false. The only victim was eBay, and the nature of their loss was a reduced profit (due to paying an unearned sales commission) on new paying customers who had viewed one of our ads."

That is a lie and he knows it (one wonders why he disabled cut/paste on the page).

Why does it matter that the only victim is eBay? Oh, I know - they make enough money already, so it's not really stealing!!!!