Skeptoid's Brian Dunning pleads guilty to fraud

[Echnaton]

I don't know how many others hear listen to the Skeptoid podcast, but since we are largely skeptics, this does have an impact on our community. 
According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal and other sources

A Southern California man has pleaded guilty to running an advertising scam that defrauded eBay out of $5.2 million. Brian Dunning, 47, could face up to 20 years in prison when he’s sentenced

This is sad for those of us that have listened to his podcasts for years and have admired him.  But it seems that he did operate a computer fraud operation. 

[darren r]

I'm bemused by the technicalities of this case but the way Brian describes it, 'cookie stuffing' is a fairly standard thing in these sort of programs. Of course, he would say that. That was obviously his defence.

But, considering how long this case has dragged on, maybe he's decided to cut his losses and get it over with?

[Echnaton]

Dunning might be forgiven for making a legal defense that is less objective than his podcasts.  Discussing the difference will make for an interesting episode.

[carpediem]

According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal and other sources

The article doesn't mention Skeptoid anywhere, are you sure they are referring to the same person?

[Daggerstab]

Yes, pretty sure:
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/10/05/a-partial-explanation/

(Note that as the URL shows, this post is from 2011.)

[Echnaton]

It is also mentioned on his Wikipedia page.

[Peter B]

I'm bemused by the technicalities of this case but the way Brian describes it, 'cookie stuffing' is a fairly standard thing in these sort of programs. Of course, he would say that. That was obviously his defence.

That's certainly how it sounds in the article on the Skeptoid website.

So if thousands of people* are engaged in this sort of activity around the world, what prompted eBay to act against him alone, and why now?

* I'm guessing the number, but Dunning suggests it's a fundamental activity to how businesses operate and advertise on the Internet.

[DataCable]

what prompted eBay to act against him alone, and why now?

"Now" being 2007.

[Daggerstab]

Here is a blog post describing the situation in more detail, including excerpts from court documents:
http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=291

As for why eBay went after Dunning, a relevant quote would be "As of approximately June 2007, KFC was the number-two producing account in the Affiliate Program." The alleged sum he allegedly appropriated is not exactly peanuts.

[Peter B]

Oh dear.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/how-kesslers-flying-circus-cookie-stuffed-its-way-to-5-2m-from-ebay/

Reading the above story and a few others has caused my doubt and sympathy to evaporate rather quickly.

To paraphrase a comment about this case I read somewhere, a man who educated the public about charlatans who scam people was himself a charlatan who scammed people (well, eBay).

[darren r]

I think we need to be careful about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Whatever crime Brian Dunning has committed it doesn't invalidate Skeptoid. Enough people are going to be making that claim without us joining them.

It's sad and disappointing that one of our own has been shown to be flawed in this way but it doesn't mean there are flying saucers at Roswell, Creationism is true or 9/11 was an inside job.

Of course, if he also turns out to be a member of the Illuminati or a 12-foot reptile I may have to revise my opinion.

[Echnaton]

think we need to be careful about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Whatever crime Brian Dunning has committed it doesn't invalidate Skeptoid. Enough people are going to be making that claim without us joining them.

I agree.  The man is not the message.  The results of Dunning's clear thinking and presentation skills are not invalidated by a potential personal failing.  Any more than the results of science are invalidated by the personal failings of an investigator.

It is easy to incrementally fall into doing something wrong when here are no clear guidelines and it seems that everyone else is doing it. It may also be that his actions were really a civil violation of a contract that an over aggressive prosecutor criminalized after eBay applied a a lot of political pressure.    When the G-men are after you with a threat of 20 years in jail hanging over your head and seemingly perpetual legal expenses, you will always be tempted to capitulate even if you believe you did nothing wrong.  Or perhaps it was just a contractually vague situation without much of a precedent. 

Others have written that Dunning's system defrauded other marketing affiliates as much (or more than) eBay.  The claimed effect is that Dunning's system took precedent over cookies installed by other affiliates without actually requiring the shopper to have clicked on a link served up by Dunning's system.  If true that at least fails an initial smell test.   

[Peter B]

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but as it's a carry-on of the same topic I thought it worthwhile...

Dunning has been sentenced to 15 months jail: http://skepchick.org/2014/08/brian-dunning-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-fraud/

Dunning's own explanation: http://www.briandunning.com/message.html

And a take-apart of the explanation: http://skepchick.org/2014/08/a-critical-analysis-of-brian-dunnings-explanation/

= = = =

I have to say I'm not in a happy place with the world of Skeptics at the moment.

Several months ago I left an email list of mostly Australian skeptics because of a combination of the noisiness of climate change deniers on the list, the lack of interest in scientific/skeptic topics I raised, and the annoyingly number of posts with nothing to do with skepticism.

A couple of months ago I decided to not renew my subscription to the Australian Skeptic magazine because the editor had decided to refuse to publish any articles to do with climate change.

And now this...

[Peter B]

It is easy to incrementally fall into doing something wrong when here are no clear guidelines and it seems that everyone else is doing it. It may also be that his actions were really a civil violation of a contract that an over aggressive prosecutor criminalized after eBay applied a a lot of political pressure. When the G-men are after you with a threat of 20 years in jail hanging over your head and seemingly perpetual legal expenses, you will always be tempted to capitulate even if you believe you did nothing wrong. Or perhaps it was just a contractually vague situation without much of a precedent.

Sadly, it seems that Dunning's actions were motivated only by greed.

Others have written that Dunning's system defrauded other marketing affiliates as much (or more than) eBay. The claimed effect is that Dunning's system took precedent over cookies installed by other affiliates without actually requiring the shopper to have clicked on a link served up by Dunning's system. If true that at least fails an initial smell test.

According to a comment on the last of the links I provided above, that's exactly what happened. Apparently that's why eBay only claimed losses of a few hundred thousand dollars, even though Dunning's company earned millions. The rest of the money came at the expense of other affiliates.

What this means is that it was hardly a victimless crime - I assume that eBay was probably the largest single loser, and that lots of affiliates actually lost fairly modest amounts of money. But the point is that taking even $100 from someone else without their consent is theft whether it's done by pickpocketing or by this method.

[Echnaton]

Sadly, it seems that Dunning's actions were motivated only by greed.

I am not quite sure what that means or how one can determine the sole motivation of another. 



From the perspective of more information, this is what I see. Dunning had a contract with Ebay that called on him to act in a certain way.  He worked with employees or contractors of Ebay who were aware or encouraged him to act differently, to the detriment of the company and perhaps other marketing affiliates like himself.  He may be right that representatives of Ebay knew about it and approved.  However his actions were essentially conspiring with employes or contractors to violate the contract he signed to the detriment of the other party.  That is one clear definition of fraud. 


ETA: It seems in my non-professional opinion, that the fraud rises to the criminal level because it was to the disadvantage of other affiliates.  Had it been a pure contractual issues with Ebay, it may have only been a civil case.  Fraud to the disadvantage of parties not in the contract seems to be a sound reason for the criminal case. 

While Dunning may be right that it was a common and known practice, that is not a legal defense.  The contract is the term, not what everyone else does.  He would have to produce documentation that would be tantamount to a contractual amendment as a defense.   Something he apparently could not do.    Like Dunning, I think it is odd that he got singled out to make this a federal case, but it did fall under the very broad definition of federal wire fraud. However, claims of selective prosecution or legal overreaching no matter how justified, are no legal defense.   The lesson is a simple basic of business and law, if you have a contract, stick to the contract or get it amended to allow what you want to do.   

It is all a shame, because I have been a big fan of his podcast.  It has been a good learning tool in my family.  The public message of the work has been greatly diminished by the flaws of the messenger.