Brian Dunning lawsuit

[idoubtit]

Brian has taught me that you must not fall prey to the people who just want to bring you down. That is why he never let on that it was this rough.

I just posted the story to Doubtful News so, it will get around now.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Kind of weird he's not really addressing this.... more then that, he is going on like everything is perfectly normal.

Actually, it is addressed at Skeptoid.com, but it is light on details, as one would expect, due to his only being able to say what his lawyer will allow him to say. That is fairly normal, as lawyers want to control what is put out in the public domain, for fear of Brian saying something that could be used against him.

 

[Lowpro]

That may be one of the most ingenious eBay schemes I've seen in awhile

Bravo

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Brian:

I am a long time fan, and a former financial supporter, until I could no longer afford to, and I want you to know you and your family are in my thoughts during these difficult times, and I hope things get better from here on for you and your family.

Everyone else:

Mistakes were made, but those should not be used to minimize the work Brian has done for the skeptical community, and the valuable information he has presented through Skeptoid.com and other skeptical outlets. Please separate the mistakes of the past from the positive good he has done in the present and future.

 

[icerat]

Sorry, but I have no sympathy. I've worked in the internet industry since before there was a web and have encountered fraud like this more than once. What's being missed is that this cookie stuffing actively stole money from other people who would otherwise have received the affiliate commissions.

Dunning and Hogan and their partners stole millions from not just ebay, but many many other people trying to make a few bucks from affiliate programs.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It looks like Brian Dunning has pled guilty to wire fraud, and is looking at significant potential time in prison, according to this recent blog post.

I don't practice in this area, but I don't think the analysis of possible prison time is very accurate. The calculator is for determining time for a conviction. A plea is very different. It is entirely possible that he will not serve any prison time.

If the plea allows him to not serve any prison time then this could be a situation where it was cheaper to plead guilty than to continue fighting. Not uncommon in a federal criminal case. Yes, it is a huge mark against his reputation, but at some point you have to go with the odds and what makes sense financially.

Sad story, either way.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Sorry, but I have no sympathy. I've worked in the internet industry since before there was a web and have encountered fraud like this more than once. What's being missed is that this cookie stuffing actively stole money from other people who would otherwise have received the affiliate commissions.

Dunning and Hogan and their partners stole millions from not just ebay, but many many other people trying to make a few bucks from affiliate programs.

Allegedly.

 

[davefoc]

Sorry, but I have no sympathy. I've worked in the internet industry since before there was a web and have encountered fraud like this more than once. What's being missed is that this cookie stuffing actively stole money from other people who would otherwise have received the affiliate commissions.

Dunning and Hogan and their partners stole millions from not just ebay, but many many other people trying to make a few bucks from affiliate programs.

I reread Dunning's response here:
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/10/05/a-partial-explanation/

I wasn't sure I understood it, but it sounded to me like he was claiming that the cookies that were installed as a result of his activities represented an exposure to an ad and not that the viewer had actually clicked on a link to Ebay.

Ebay appears to have thought otherwise and was paying in a way that suggested that they believed the cookies represented a visit to their site via a link on a site Dunning or his partners were responsible for.

Are there any plausible ways that Dunning could have been involved in this without an intention to defraud Ebay? Other information that I've seen suggests that there were very specific acts that could not have been done without an unequivocal intent to defraud. I don't know whether Dunning was involved in those or not, but distributing software that would secretly install a program to erroneously drive the creation of cookies that falsely gave Dunning or associates with credit for viewers visiting an Ebay site when they didn't would seem like strong evidence of intent to me.

 

[SomedayGirl]

Allegedly.

If he plead guilty, is the charge still considered alleged?

 

[shadron]

If he plead guilty, is the charge still considered alleged?

A fine point of legalistic "truth", for sure. Once the innocent/guilty determination is in the past, "alleged" is no longer applicable. Whether he is actually ethically guity of anything is a different question.

 

[davefoc]

If he plead guilty, is the charge still considered alleged?

It is conceivable that Dunning found himself backed into a corner and was forced to plead guilty to something that he continues to feel he did without an intention to defraud. I think the use of allegedly is reasonable here, but I would change my mind if I had a better handle on the facts and it was clear that this case involved an unequivocal intent to defraud. If it does involve an unequivocal intent to defraud then it looks like Dunning's protestations of innocence are pretty dodgy as well.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If he plead guilty, is the charge still considered alleged?

Without the plea agreement it is difficult to determine what he is actually pleading guilty to.

So, he is still only "alleged" to have done all of the things that the government accused him of, is "guilty" only of what he has agreed to in the plea agreement, and the state has not yet shown that he has done anything at all.

 

[TsarBomba]

Without the plea agreement it is difficult to determine what he is actually pleading guilty to.

So, he is still only "alleged" to have done all of the things that the government accused him of, is "guilty" only of what he has agreed to in the plea agreement, and the state has not yet shown that he has done anything at all.

That is not correct. He has pled guilty. The terms of the plea agreement would only have to do with sentencing, or possibly cooperation against other individuals (pure speculation there), but the documents posted indicate that entered a guilty plea to wire fraud. He is not "alleged" any more.

 

[TsarBomba]

I don't practice in this area, but I don't think the analysis of possible prison time is very accurate. The calculator is for determining time for a conviction. A plea is very different. It is entirely possible that he will not serve any prison time.

If the plea allows him to not serve any prison time then this could be a situation where it was cheaper to plead guilty than to continue fighting. Not uncommon in a federal criminal case. Yes, it is a huge mark against his reputation, but at some point you have to go with the odds and what makes sense financially.

Sad story, either way.

A guilty plea results in a conviction the same way that a trial does. The Federal Sentencing Guildelines apply to both convictions after jury trials and convictions after guilty pleas. There is an automatic 2 point downward departure for acceptance of responsibliy, which applies to guilty pleas. So, you get a lesser recommended sentence with a guilty plea, but the exact same guidlines apply otherwise.

 

[Disraeli Ears]

Technically, it's not "alleged" anymore - as TsarBomba pointed out. And in the wider world, it is not "alleged" anymore - Brian has pled guilty to a Federal crime, which is a BIG DEAL, and it will follow him around for the rest of his life. IMO, if he pled guilty because it was "easier" than other options, that is a huge mistake. BUT...I can't pretend to know his motives.

As for the FB post, if he is referring to the talked-about post as "rumor-mongering," he just looks defensive. I thought the author did a fair assessment of what is really going on (using facts obtained from the case documents) and even copped to respecting Brian as a person and skeptic. I heard plenty of worse rumors before I read that post.

 

[Lowpro]

A guilty plea results in a conviction the same way that a trial does. The Federal Sentencing Guildelines apply to both convictions after jury trials and convictions after guilty pleas. There is an automatic 2 point downward departure for acceptance of responsibliy, which applies to guilty pleas. So, you get a lesser recommended sentence with a guilty plea, but the exact same guidlines apply otherwise.

But is the prison time reported indicative of the prison time to be served from the plea bargain conviction or was the prison time reported for those convicted in trial rather than in lieu. From what I thought, the plea bargain occurs during discovery (or beforehand maybe during Grand Jury investigation) so the prosecution actually does not provide evidence in trial (aka the evidence that we're actually going to see and consider in the conviction. A plea bargain could be made with the prosecution providing no evidence during discovery...)

As far as "alleged" goes the conviction against the defendent probably makes "alleged" crimes go to "yea he dun it" crimes, not sure whether it sticks around in the ether...

 

[icerat]

Are there any plausible ways that Dunning could have been involved in this without an intention to defraud Ebay?

No, though the "defraud ebay" part is arguable if we believe Dunning and Hogan's defence of "ebay knew, even encouraged it".

That may or may not be true, but it doesn't change the fact it steals commissions off other affiliates. There's no way they would not have known that and as such is unforgivable.

 

[AdMan]

No, though the "defraud ebay" part is arguable if we believe Dunning and Hogan's defence of "ebay knew, even encouraged it".

That may or may not be true, but it doesn't change the fact it steals commissions off other affiliates. There's no way they would not have known that and as such is unforgivable.

You're assuming that even if a user accessed ebay via another affiliate's link (and thus received a cookie from that affiliate), Dunning would still receive credit for it, due to his previously surreptitiously-dropped cookie. Would that necessarily be the case?

 

[icerat]

You're assuming that even if a user accessed ebay via another affiliate's link (and thus received a cookie from that affiliate), Dunning would still receive credit for it, due to his previously surreptitiously-dropped cookie. Would that necessarily be the case?

It depends on the exactly how ebay tracks affiliates but more likely is their cookie over-writing others legitimate cookies. This can happen even on the same site since they were, amongst other methods, spreading this code in widgets they then gave away to other websites to use. So you could be an ebay affiliate promoting something on your website with some Digital Point widget installed and these guys were stealing your sales.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That is not correct. He has pled guilty.

To at least one count. How many counts were alleged? How much of what was in icerats post was relevant to the count that he plead guilty to?

The terms of the plea agreement would only have to do with sentencing, or possibly cooperation against other individuals (pure speculation there), but the documents posted indicate that entered a guilty plea to wire fraud. He is not "alleged" any more.

As to the one count that he plead guilty to, I agree. But not as to everything alleged byt the government.