Brian Dunning lawsuit

[Reivax]

I've been listening to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid Podcasts for some time now and have been very impressed with them. I have found them very informative, interesting and well researched, covering a broad range of topics.

After watching the majority of these podcast episodes, purchasing one of his books (which is still in transit), and watching his free 40-minute movie Here Be Dragons, I have gained a lot of respect for him, his work and what he has done for the skeptical community.

However, I recently looked up Brian Dunning on Wikipedia and came across this:

eBay lawsuit and related criminal case

In August 2008, eBay filed suit against Dunning and two other men accusing them of defrauding eBay and eBay affiliates in a cookie stuffing scheme. On June 24, 2010, based on the same allegations and following an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a grand jury indicted Dunning on charges of wire fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(skeptic)

While I understand that humans make mistakes and are fallible creatures, this did not change the fact that I was shocked to read it. I suppose I was disheartened to see someone who I've gained respect for suffer a hardship and be convicted of a crime. While this may be unrelated to the content of his podcasts and certainly does not invalidate their content in anyway, I find it strange that a person who is debunking and exposing frauds is in fact criticized of fraudulent behavior himself.

I still do not fully understand some of the terminology presented in regards to the lawsuit and the crime committed and after further researching the issue, I found that there is some debate concerning the integrity of the action in question notably his own podcast episode "Internet Paranoia" which expresses some of his views on the matter.

While I will most definitely keep on listening to his podcast, I may reconsider making a donation to his website. As I am still not fully informed on the case at hand, I would be thankful if others could perhaps reiterate it in layman's terms.

Am interested in hearing your responses,

Thanks in advance!

 

[Lamuella]

I've not heard of this before. Are we sure it's the same Brian Dunning, and not a case of overzealous editing?

 

[foxholeatheist]

I, despite making about 23,000$ a year, have donated monthly to Skeptiod since 2008.

I love the podcast and consider it to be worth donating to.

Withholding judgement until I better understand what the situation is...

 

[Reivax]

I've not heard of this before. Are we sure it's the same Brian Dunning, and not a case of overzealous editing?

I'm fairly confident it is the same Brian Dunning, as there are a lot of other sources suggesting that he and his brother, Todd were involved in the case.

 

[Lamuella]

fair enough, I stand corrected.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

While this may be unrelated to the content of his podcasts and certainly does not invalidate their content in anyway, I find it strange that a person who is debunking and exposing frauds is in fact convicted of fraudulent behavior himself.

He's not been convicted of anything. The Feds have indicted him, and eBay has sued in civil court.

Yes, it's the same guy. I first learned of this back before TAM.

He's in deep ****.

 

[Reivax]

Ah my bad, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I find it strange that a person who is debunking and exposing frauds is in fact convicted of fraudulent behavior himself.

Then again, you know what they say. "Takes one to know one".

I, despite making about 23,000$ a year, have donated monthly to Skeptiod since 2008.

I love the podcast and consider it to be worth donating to.

Withholding judgement until I better understand what the situation is...

I, too, hold the podcast in high regard, it's highly eduational and has a fantastic format. I find this situation highly, for lack of a better word, unfortunate.

 

[madurobob]

I'm also a follower of the podcast and had no idea there was a fraud indictment.

But, I'm also a bit unclear on what he's charged with doing. "Cookie stuffing" is not illegal, I don't think. Its just a way to pay affiliates for sending traffic your way. So, I wonder what he is specifically charged with doing that made it illegal and got the interest of the FBI? Maybe there were using eBay as a click through page just to set the cookie, then closed the sale on a landing page that was outside of eBay and its control?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The links in the story, footnotes #24 & 25 have a wealth of additional information.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv04052/206526/

http://www.revenews.com/affiliate-marketing/affiliates-indicted-for-cookie-stuffing/

They include a link to the criminal case file.

 

[madurobob]

The links in the story, footnotes #24 & 25 have a wealth of additional information.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv04052/206526/

http://www.revenews.com/affiliate-marketing/affiliates-indicted-for-cookie-stuffing/

Thanks, just found this one, too
http://ebrianrose.com/digital-point-founder-facing-20-years-in-cookie-stuffing-scheme/

Investigators claimed that Hogan, 35, used computer code to illegally send affiliate tracking cookies to the web browsers of unsuspecting visitors of his Internet marketing chat forum. These cookies are designed to track users actions and pay affiliates for customers that use the eBay service as a result of clicking on legitimate affiliate links placed on websites or emails.

The government alleges that Hogan also “attempted to place this computer code on a large number of web pages, including web pages that were not directly affiliated with Digital Point Solutions.” The twelve page indictment, issued last week, claims that Hogan attempted to hide the cookie stuffing from eBay and Commission Junction, the third party vendor that handles eBay’s affiliate program, by geo-targeting his code not to show up on computers located in San Jose and Santa Barbara, CA, the home bases of eBay and CJ

Looks like bad news all around.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't pretend to understand exactly what they did, but this appears to give more details.

We're not talking peanuts:

Between 2006 and June 2007, Shawn Hogan (Digital Point Solutions) earned approximately $15.5 million in commissions from eBay. Hogan was eBay’s number one affiliate.

Between 2006 and June 2007, Dunning (Kessler’s Flying Circus) earned approximately $5.3 million in commissions from eBay. Dunning was eBay’s number two affiliate.

Hogan and Dunning are accused of generating hidden forced clicks on both their own web sites as well as sites not connected with the defendants in order to increase the number of computers storing the eBay affiliate tracking cookie.

The legal criteria for wire fraud was established not on money (commissions) being transferred over the wires, but because of transmission of the tracking cookie between states and internationally.

The affiliates attempted to hide the activity from eBay and CJ by not engaging in the cookie stuffing on computers located in San Jose (eBay headquarters) or Santa Barbara (CJ’s headquarters). This is geo-targeting and is readily known to be used by affiliates engaging in questionable activity. Of course, not all geo-targeting activity in nefarious.

Both Hogan (2005) and Dunning (2006) denied any cookie stuffing behavior when questioned by CJ.

Each individual wire fraud account is related to a particular incident on an IP address outside California (location of eBay servers) where an affiliate cookie for the defendants was set.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm also a follower of the podcast and had no idea there was a fraud indictment.

But, I'm also a bit unclear on what he's charged with doing. "Cookie stuffing" is not illegal, I don't think. Its just a way to pay affiliates for sending traffic your way. So, I wonder what he is specifically charged with doing that made it illegal and got the interest of the FBI? Maybe there were using eBay as a click through page just to set the cookie, then closed the sale on a landing page that was outside of eBay and its control?

I read the indictment a few months ago, so I've forgotten a lot of the details, but if you read it, it will become apparent what he (allegedly) did. It's not good.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm also a follower of the podcast and had no idea there was a fraud indictment.

But, I'm also a bit unclear on what he's charged with doing. "Cookie stuffing" is not illegal, I don't think. Its just a way to pay affiliates for sending traffic your way. So, I wonder what he is specifically charged with doing that made it illegal and got the interest of the FBI? Maybe there were using eBay as a click through page just to set the cookie, then closed the sale on a landing page that was outside of eBay and its control?

From the Revenews link:

The short version is that eBay alleges that the affiliates named engaged in “cookie stuffing”, specifically generating hidden forced clicks of their Ebay affiliate links. Hidden forced clicks are when an affiliate link is invoked without a physical click by the end user. Various forms of technology and/or coding are used so that the merchant’s site is not actually seen by the end user. The alleged activities in question occurred between 2003 and mid 2007. eBay claims measures were taken to hide the activity and that the defendants denied any wrongdoing when questioned by CJ, which at the time was still running eBay’s program, regarding suspicious traffic.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I find it strange that a person who is debunking and exposing frauds is in fact criticized of fraudulent behavior himself.

You mean like, for example, a person like Mark Edward who goes around exposing con jobs of psychics was in fact a con man himself?

Or that a peson like Randi goes around exposing fruad magician's tricks like Geller are in fact tricksters themselves?

It seems actually fitting to me...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't pretend to understand exactly what they did, but this appears to give more details.

We're not talking peanuts:

Wow, I'm in the wrong business.

 

[Reivax]

You mean like, for example, a person like Mark Edward who goes around exposing con jobs of psychics was in fact a con man himself?

Or that a peson like Randi goes around exposing fruad magician's tricks like Geller are in fact tricksters themselves?

It seems actually fitting to me...

Well there are similarities, but the difference is that the examples you used are self-professed. Mark Edward was for a while, to my knowledge, a genuine, fraudulent psychic, but is now a self professed psychic entertainer and skeptic while Dunning is not a self professed fraud.

 

[bookitty]

http://www.revenews.com/affiliate-marketing/affiliates-indicted-for-cookie-stuffing/

The link above is from a website dedicated to online revenue, there is a possibility the reporting is bias. The article above implies that the civil suit in which Dunning finds himself is fairly unique. There haven't been other high-profile "cookie-stuffing" cases and it was a grey area which slid into black over time and with new regulations.

http://www.revenews.com/affiliate-m...ookie-stuffing-allegations-with-mud-slinging/

In this article one of the defendants claims that he was working with Ebay, that Ebay knew what was going on and encouraged it until Meg Whitman left. Of course, the bias here is fairly obvious.

So it's not quite the same thing as straight-up embezzlement with clearly defined boundaries.

 

[not daSkeptic]

"Cookie stuffing" is not illegal, I don't think. Its just a way to pay affiliates for sending traffic your way. So, I wonder what he is specifically charged with doing that made it illegal and got the interest of the FBI? Maybe there were using eBay as a click through page just to set the cookie, then closed the sale on a landing page that was outside of eBay and its control?

Cookie stuffing is textbook fraud. The idea is to trick a merchant (eBay in this case) into thinking someone has visited your site and clicked your affiliate link when they haven't actually done so.

Affiliate programs are supposed to work as follows:

1. User visits affiliate site.
2. User clicks on merchant link.
3. User receives cookie identifying affiliate.
4. User buys from merchant.
5. Merchant sees affiliate cookie and sends them a commission.

With cookie stuffing, the process can be as follows:

1. User visits some website (not the affiliate or merchant).
2. User receives cookie identifying affiliate.
3. User visits merchant site and buys something.
4. Merchant sees affiliate cookie and sends them a commission.

In this second scenario, the affiliate was paid even though the user never visited their site.

 

[AdMan]

With cookie stuffing, the process can be as follows:

1. User visits some website (not the affiliate or merchant).
2. User receives cookie identifying affiliate.
3. User visits merchant site and buys something.
4. Merchant sees affiliate cookie and sends them a commission.

In this second scenario, the affiliate was paid even though the user never visited their site.

In this scenario, how does the affiliate manage to deposit a cookie via a third party website?