• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Brian Dunning lawsuit

daSkeptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

From reading the PDF of the complaint, I think it's more like this, which is subtly different:

  1. User visits affiliate's website (or one they supplied code for)
  2. User doesn't click on (or necessarily even see) a link to the merchant, but gets a cookie identifying the affiliate anyway, as if they did.
  3. Some time in the next month, user visits merchant site and buys something.
  4. Merchant sees affiliate cookie and sends them a commission.

The cookie should only be there if the affiliate was responsible for the user visiting the merchant's web site.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
From reading the PDF of the complaint, I think it's more like this, which is subtly different:

  1. User visits affiliate's website (or one they supplied code for)
  2. User doesn't click on (or necessarily even see) a link to the merchant, but gets a cookie identifying the affiliate anyway, as if they did.
  3. User visits merchant site and buys something.
  4. Merchant sees affiliate cookie and sends them a commission.

The cookie should only be there if the affiliate was responsible for the user visiting the merchant's web site.
Click to expand...
According to the various explanations of what's gone on, both methods (and daSkeptic's example was very clearly only one of many -- he said the process "can be as follows" not "only is as follows") were used.

You, yourself, linked to an article that said both were used.
 
daSkeptic said:
In this second scenario, the affiliate was paid even though the user never visited their site.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I understood both processes could be considered "cookie stuffing" depending on how its done. With so many people browsing with no attention paid to cookies its easy to set cookies without user knowledge. The way I had heard the term used suggested that anytime the user didn't know about the cookie it was "cookie stuffing". But, I can see how the term might be better defined as fraudulently setting cookies without the user knowing.
 
Last I heard, his trial is next month in (I believe) San Jose. I'm sure we'll learn more soon.
 
AdMan said:
In this scenario, how does the affiliate manage to deposit a cookie via a third party website?
Click to expand...

I think, for instance, you set up an internet forum and set the cookie for every visitor to the forum - the cookie identifies your affiliate business. Then, whenever those visitors buy from a participating merchant the merchant reads the cookie and pays you commission for the business/traffic. So, the cookie is set without the user knowing and without the user actually using the affiliate site to click through to the merchant.
 
AdMan said:
In this scenario, how does the affiliate manage to deposit a cookie via a third party website?
Click to expand...

The affiliate doesn't generate the cookies directly, in either scenario. The merchant does. One method is for each affiliate to be given a unique URL by the merchant, which the affiliate places somewhere on their site. When a user clicks the appropriate link, the browser goes to the unique URL and the merchant knows which affiliate to credit.

There are ways to cause a browser to request a URL without the user being aware of it. Invisible elements, JavaScript, etc. If a site employs one of these techniques with an affiliate URL, the net result is a merchant cookie being given to the browser without the user's knowledge.

In order to accomplish this, however, the third-party site has to contain the necessary elements. This can be done by hacking or collusion.
 
I appreciate that the tone of this conversation is not typical of most such posts on the Internet, where the posters almost seem to gleefully gloat over this. It is the most horrible and traumatic thing to ever happen to my family, and was shocking and unexpected to say the very least.

I'm preparing a blog post that will address as much of this as possible. It must be approved by attorneys and that's taking a long time. Until that happens, I regret that I won't say anything more about this. You all deserve an explanation, which I would love to give.

Those who know me personally have a much better idea of what kind of man I am than those who simply read these complaints that have been filed. Those who know how the legal system works know that complaints reflect one party's assertions, and do not include any part of the defense, or anything at all that does not support their position. They are intentionally written that way.

I ask you all, the closest community I've ever had the privilege to be a part of, to give me the benefit of the doubt and suspend your judgement and speculation until a meaningful percentage of the facts are made public. Please accept my apologies in advance for not participating any further in this thread or on any other until I'm able to post my blog. Until then, I'm continuing to do what I do best and be as productive as circumstances permit.
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that Brian himself has said nothing about this in any public forum. This is the only legally sound way to proceed--there is a good reason people and companies to not comment on pending litigation. Because of this, we have no idea what Brian's defenses might be, what his position and viewpoint are.

Who knows the level of his personal involvement in the alleged scheme. Could he have just been the money guy, providing capitol while someone else provided the technical expertise? Dunno. Maybe. He may have just been an investor in this small company, with no more involvement than doing corporate paperwork and providing start-up money. Again, dunno.

It has been a couple months since I read the indictment, but from what I remember it is a somewhat curiously worded document, only charging Brian with a few (five, if my memory is correct) particular transactions involving alleged cookie stiffing from foreign ip addresses that accessed eBay with stuffed cookies. I found it very strange that the feds only used these few instances involving international customers of eBay, and none from the USA.

I would be very interested to hear what Brian has to say about all of this, but no way his lawyer will let that happen until after the trial, if then. He will still have the eBay civil lawsuit to worry about, although if he is convicted at the criminal trial, that would seem to settle the issue of liability for the civil trial, and the only issue left over should be damages.
 
Apparently Brian and I were drafting our replies at the same time. Good luck, Brian!
 
Thanks Brian. I'm torn between the visceral "death to the internet scammers!" reaction and the idea that you're one of the good guys. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and I wish you luck in this mess.

But, I do look forward to what explanation you can offer when you can.
 
briandunning said:
I appreciate that the tone of this conversation is not typical of most such posts on the Internet, where the posters almost seem to gleefully gloat over this. It is the most horrible and traumatic thing to ever happen to my family, and was shocking and unexpected to say the very least.

I'm preparing a blog post that will address as much of this as possible. It must be approved by attorneys and that's taking a long time. Until that happens, I regret that I won't say anything more about this. You all deserve an explanation, which I would love to give.

Those who know me personally have a much better idea of what kind of man I am than those who simply read these complaints that have been filed. Those who know how the legal system works know that complaints reflect one party's assertions, and do not include any part of the defense, or anything at all that does not support their position. They are intentionally written that way.

I ask you all, the closest community I've ever had the privilege to be a part of, to give me the benefit of the doubt and suspend your judgement and speculation until a meaningful percentage of the facts are made public. Please accept my apologies in advance for not participating any further in this thread or on any other until I'm able to post my blog. Until then, I'm continuing to do what I do best and be as productive as circumstances permit.
Click to expand...
Do you way as much as a duck? :confused:
 
briandunning said:
I appreciate that the tone of this conversation is not typical of most such posts on the Internet, where the posters almost seem to gleefully gloat over this. It is the most horrible and traumatic thing to ever happen to my family, and was shocking and unexpected to say the very least.

I'm preparing a blog post that will address as much of this as possible. It must be approved by attorneys and that's taking a long time. Until that happens, I regret that I won't say anything more about this. You all deserve an explanation, which I would love to give.

Those who know me personally have a much better idea of what kind of man I am than those who simply read these complaints that have been filed. Those who know how the legal system works know that complaints reflect one party's assertions, and do not include any part of the defense, or anything at all that does not support their position. They are intentionally written that way.

I ask you all, the closest community I've ever had the privilege to be a part of, to give me the benefit of the doubt and suspend your judgement and speculation until a meaningful percentage of the facts are made public. Please accept my apologies in advance for not participating any further in this thread or on any other until I'm able to post my blog. Until then, I'm continuing to do what I do best and be as productive as circumstances permit.
Click to expand...
I give you the benefit of the doubt. EBay is a profit dedicated organization and while I sell on EBay because they have the customer base for what I sell, I have been very disappointed in their corporate business practices. I wish their competition was better.

That said, I don't appreciate anyone who manipulates my web page visits without my knowledge and I find the charges very serious. I do hope EBay is wrong and you are right.
 
briandunning said:
I appreciate that the tone of this conversation is not typical of most such posts on the Internet, where the posters almost seem to gleefully gloat over this. It is the most horrible and traumatic thing to ever happen to my family, and was shocking and unexpected to say the very least.

I'm preparing a blog post that will address as much of this as possible. It must be approved by attorneys and that's taking a long time. Until that happens, I regret that I won't say anything more about this. You all deserve an explanation, which I would love to give.

Those who know me personally have a much better idea of what kind of man I am than those who simply read these complaints that have been filed. Those who know how the legal system works know that complaints reflect one party's assertions, and do not include any part of the defense, or anything at all that does not support their position. They are intentionally written that way.

I ask you all, the closest community I've ever had the privilege to be a part of, to give me the benefit of the doubt and suspend your judgement and speculation until a meaningful percentage of the facts are made public. Please accept my apologies in advance for not participating any further in this thread or on any other until I'm able to post my blog. Until then, I'm continuing to do what I do best and be as productive as circumstances permit.
Click to expand...

As a person who has been the subject of gossip based on information that proved eventually to be completely false, I empathize and have no problem with simply not forming any opinions about this matter until you've said whatever it is you'll have to say about it.
 
You're listening to skeptoid. On today's episode..... the Brian Dunning case....

Sorry for the morbid humor. GL Brian. I love what you do. Not sure if you are guilty or not..... but at the end of the day you would have to kill someone before the bad outweighs the good.,,, and even then..
 
Brian, I do hope this gets resolved soon, so you can concentrate on your other projects...
 
briandunning said:
I appreciate that the tone of this conversation is not typical of most such posts on the Internet, where the posters almost seem to gleefully gloat over this. It is the most horrible and traumatic thing to ever happen to my family, and was shocking and unexpected to say the very least.

I'm preparing a blog post that will address as much of this as possible. It must be approved by attorneys and that's taking a long time. Until that happens, I regret that I won't say anything more about this. You all deserve an explanation, which I would love to give.

Those who know me personally have a much better idea of what kind of man I am than those who simply read these complaints that have been filed. Those who know how the legal system works know that complaints reflect one party's assertions, and do not include any part of the defense, or anything at all that does not support their position. They are intentionally written that way.

I ask you all, the closest community I've ever had the privilege to be a part of, to give me the benefit of the doubt and suspend your judgement and speculation until a meaningful percentage of the facts are made public. Please accept my apologies in advance for not participating any further in this thread or on any other until I'm able to post my blog. Until then, I'm continuing to do what I do best and be as productive as circumstances permit.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply Brian. I'm interested in hearing your version of events. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in the meantime. I wish you the very best of luck.
 
briandunning said:
You all deserve an explanation
Click to expand...
I coudln't disagree more with this. Why are we "deserving" an explanation?
Don't get me wrong, if you want to talk about it by all means do.
But it is your decision concerning your life. You don't owe any of us anything what so ever.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy for a reason.
 
Reivax said:
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.
Click to expand...

I used to do my fair share of hacking in the days, nothing major (didn't steal money or anything) but stuff that would in fact be ilegal. I was never caught.

Does that mean I shouldn't have been able to get a job in information security as I have in the past couple of years?

As the other person said, it's an issue of "takes one to know one"*

A person's past criminal record would come to question when it prevents him from doing his job properly. I don't have a problem if a person convicted of fraud will teach highschool history, for example. I do have a problem if a pedophile does.


*not saying Brian is a fraud, don't know the details and don't really care that much either.
 
Mr. Dunning, my thoughts are with you and your family during this difficult time. The stress must be incredible. Here's hoping that it is over soon so that your lives can go back to normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom