| Author | Message | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1358 Registered: 8-2001 |
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said ACME was deliberately impeding the FCC’s investigation into ACME’s collection of data. In order to “deter future misconduct”, the FCC decided to penalize ACME double the normal amount. Yet nothing changed at ACME. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 5051 Registered: 5-2003 |
Had something already changed? Was the FCC now getting the information it needed? Did the penalty achieve its intended effect? Is what ACME does relevant? Is it a business? A government operation? A facility? A TV station? Radio station? Internet provider? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1359 Registered: 8-2001 |
Had something already changed? no Was the FCC now getting the information it needed? no Did the penalty achieve its intended effect? no Is what ACME does relevant? yesish Is it a business? most certainly A government operation? no A facility? yope A TV station? no Radio station? no Internet provider? no, but much warmer | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 5071 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did ACME pay the penalty? In money? Was ACME penalized a second time? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1360 Registered: 8-2001 |
Did ACME pay the penalty? yes In money? yes Was ACME penalized a second time? no | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3180 Registered: 2-2011 |
is the nature of the data relevant? is ACME a telecoms company? IT? market research? did ACME deliberately withhold information? or obstructthe FCC? were they trying to protect their customers? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1361 Registered: 8-2001 |
is the nature of the data relevant? only indirectly is ACME a telecoms company? no, I don't think so IT? yes market research? no did ACME deliberately withhold information? probably, but I would have to say yope or obstructthe FCC? yope were they trying to protect their customers? no | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3190 Registered: 2-2011 |
was the data held in a way that made it difficult for the FCC to understand or interpret? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1362 Registered: 8-2001 |
was the data held in a way that made it difficult for the FCC to understand or interpret? no | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1159 Registered: 5-2009 |
Was ACME unable to make a relevant change? Unwilling? Collection of data: Personal data? Of users? Customers? Employees? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1363 Registered: 8-2001 |
Was ACME unable to make a relevant change? no Unwilling? yes Collection of data: Personal data? no Of users? Customers? Employees? all of these, FA lurking | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1165 Registered: 5-2009 |
Was it impossible to penalise ACME a second time for its behaviour? Would somebody refund the penalty payments to ACME? Was the penalty so low that even repeated payments would still be cheaper than making the relevant change? Would the relevant change be: ceasing to collect data? getting the permission to collect data? informing somebody about the collection of data? giving somebody access to the data? refusing somebody access to the data? deleting data after a certain time or under certain circumstances? paying somebody? No personal data - geodata? technical data? economic data? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1364 Registered: 8-2001 |
Was it impossible to penalise ACME a second time for its behaviour? no Would somebody refund the penalty payments to ACME? no Was the penalty so low that even repeated payments would still be cheaper than making the relevant change? yesish Would the relevant change be: ceasing to collect data? no getting the permission to collect data? no informing somebody about the collection of data? no giving somebody access to the data? yes refusing somebody access to the data? no deleting data after a certain time or under certain circumstances? no paying somebody? no No personal data - geodata? yope technical data? no economic data? no | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1170 Registered: 5-2009 |
Would ACME have to give the FCC access to the data? Give someone else access? Would making the data accessible result in ACME facing higher penalties? Somebody at ACME going to prison? ACME being sued for damages? Competitors taking away market shares? Customers being unwilling to buy certain products and services (for the usual prices)? Legislation being passed which is disadvantageous to ACME? Difficulties for ACME to finance their operations (e.g. banks demanding higher interest rates or refusing to loan them money)? Or would the act of making the data accessible itself be so expensive that it is cheaper to pay penalties? Is the puzzle based on something which really happened? FYOI? Could a business like ACME have existed before the invention of the WWW? Before the Internet? Fax machines? Computers? Telephones? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1365 Registered: 8-2001 |
Would ACME have to give the FCC access to the data? yes Give someone else access? no Would making the data accessible result in ACME facing higher penalties? no Somebody at ACME going to prison? no ACME being sued for damages? no Competitors taking away market shares? no Customers being unwilling to buy certain products and services (for the usual prices)? no Legislation being passed which is disadvantageous to ACME? no Difficulties for ACME to finance their operations (e.g. banks demanding higher interest rates or refusing to loan them money)? no Or would the act of making the data accessible itself be so expensive that it is cheaper to pay penalties? yope, it is cheaper to pay the penalties, but the expense is only part of the reason Is the puzzle based on something which really happened? yes FYOI? no Could a business like ACME have existed before the invention of the WWW? no Before the Internet? no Fax machines? no, but only because these other things came later Computers? no Telephones? no, but only because these other things came later | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1171 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does ACME run parts of the Internet's infrastructure (e.g. lines, routers, nameservers)? Produce/sell hardware used to run or access the Internet? Software? Provide services which help using the Internet (e.g. a search engine)? Sell services over the Internet? Sell goods over the Internet? Were ACME's employees who could make the data accessible to the FCC doing work which would yield more profits than the penalty would cost? ACME wasn't penalised a second time: Because they finally complied with the FCC's demands? Because the FCC found another way to get the data it wanted? Because ACME's obligation to provide data was abolished? Because the FCC realised they wouldn't get the data anyway and decided to do something more promising? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1366 Registered: 8-2001 |
Does ACME run parts of the Internet's infrastructure (e.g. lines, routers, nameservers)? no is the best answer...or the least misleading Produce/sell hardware used to run or access the Internet? no Software? no Provide services which help using the Internet (e.g. a search engine)? yes Sell services over the Internet? yes, but... Sell goods over the Internet? yes, but... selling things is not what they are best known for Were ACME's employees who could make the data accessible to the FCC doing work which would yield more profits than the penalty would cost? yes ACME wasn't penalised a second time: Because they finally complied with the FCC's demands? no Because the FCC found another way to get the data it wanted? no Because ACME's obligation to provide data was abolished? no Because the FCC realised they wouldn't get the data anyway and decided to do something more promising? yes | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1176 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does ACME provide a search engine? A redacted index of webpages? Some kind of news aggregator? RSS aggregator? Browser extensions? Does ACME exist today? If so: Does ACME stikk provide the same services which it provided at the time of the puzzle? Were the employees who did more profitable work than responding to the FCC's demands working at some specific project? A new service to be introduced? Negotiating contracts with new (paying) customers? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1367 Registered: 8-2001 |
Does ACME provide a search engine? yes A redacted index of webpages? Some kind of news aggregator? RSS aggregator? Browser extensions? Does ACME exist today? yes If so: Does ACME stikk provide the same services which it provided at the time of the puzzle? yes, story is recent Were the employees who did more profitable work than responding to the FCC's demands working at some specific project? no A new service to be introduced? no Negotiating contracts with new (paying) customers? no, just doing normal work | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1197 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is ACME in fact Google? Would ACME's existing services be disrupted if the employees would answer the FCC's requests? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1368 Registered: 8-2001 |
Is ACME in fact Google? yes! Would ACME's existing services be disrupted if the employees would answer the FCC's requests? more like delayed. So why did nothing change at Google after the fine? | ||
| Stuccosalt (Stuccosalt)
New member Username: Stuccosalt Post Number: 563 Registered: 8-2004 |
is the 'normal amount' relevant? is it along the lines of taking x percentage of sales, applied here to a free service Google provides? are FCC's punishments dated or misapplied for a company like Google? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1412 Registered: 8-2001 |
is the 'normal amount' relevant? yes is it along the lines of taking x percentage of sales, applied here to a free service Google provides? no are FCC's punishments dated no or misapplied yesish for a company like Google? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 2118 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was it a human error (like accusing ACME for another company's errors?) | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 2119 Registered: 9-2009 |
Doubling the amount -- because of the fact they didn't comply with the initial request (if any?) Or maybe there was an error in the computation? Any persons relevant? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1429 Registered: 8-2001 |
Was it a human error (like accusing ACME for another company's errors?) no Doubling the amount -- because of the fact they didn't comply with the initial request (if any?) no Or maybe there was an error in the computation? no Any persons relevant? no person in particular, no | ||
| Liquizt (Liquizt)
New member Username: Liquizt Post Number: 721 Registered: 5-2008 |
Was the normal amount 0 (in relevant currency)? less than the cost of an average person's weekly shopping? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1459 Registered: 8-2001 |
Was the normal amount 0 (in relevant currency)? no less than the cost of an average person's weekly shopping? no | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 18176 Registered: 4-2010 |
Recap please? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1473 Registered: 8-2001 |
Recap please? As you wish... The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said ACME was deliberately impeding the FCC’s investigation into ACME’s collection of data. In order to “deter future misconduct”, the FCC decided to penalize ACME double the normal amount. Yet nothing changed at ACME. Nothing has changed at Google. The FCC is still not getting the information it needs. The penalty did not achieve its intended effect. What Google does is indirectly relevant. Google is a business. But not a government operation. Google does have facilities but no TV station or radio station. Google is not an internet provider. Google did pay the penalty in money but was not penalized a second time. The nature of the data is indirectly relevant. Google is not a telecommunications company. Google is an IT company, but not a market research firm. Google probably deliberately withheld information and may have obstructed the FCC, but not to protect their customers. The data was not held in a way that made it difficult for the FCC to understand or interpret. Google was able to make a relevant change but was unwilling. The data was not personal but was somewhat about users, customers and employees with and FA lurking. It was not impossible to penalize Google a second time. And no one would refund the penalty payments. The penalty payments were so low that even repeated payments would be cheaper than making the relevant changes, but this was not the motivating factor. The change would not be ceasing to collect data or getting permission to collect data or informing somebody about the collection of data, but rather giving someone access to the data. The change was also not refusing somebody access to the data, deleting the data after a certain time or under certain circumstances or paying someone. The data does involve geodata, but not technical or economic data. Google would have to give the FCC access to the data. Not someone else. Making the data accessible would not result in Google facing higher penalties. No one at Google is going to prison. Google is not being sued. Competitors are not taking away market shares. No customers are now unwilling to buy certain products and services (for the usual prices). There is no legislation being passed which is disadvantageous to Google. There are no difficulties for Google to finance their operations (e.g. banks demanding higher interest rates or refusing to loan them money). The act of making the data accessible itself may be so expensive that it is cheaper to pay penalties, but this is not the motivating factor. The puzzle is based on something which really happened. Not from my imagination. A business like Google could not have existed before the invention of the WWW, the internet, computers, telephones or fax machines. It is least misleading to say that Google does not run parts of the Internet's infrastructure (e.g. lines, routers, nameservers)? Google does not produce/sell hardware used to run or access the Internet, software, but does provide services which help using the Internet (e.g. a search engine) as well as other services and goods. Google's employees who could make the data accessible to the FCC were doing work which would yield more profits than the penalty would cost. Google wasn't penalised a second time, but it was not because they finally complied with the FCC's demands? Nor was it because the FCC found another way to get the data it wanted. Nor was it because Google's obligation to provide data was abolished. But rather it was because the FCC realized they wouldn't get the data anyway and decided to do something more promising. Google does provide a search engine. Google does exist today. Google still provides the same services which it provided at the time of the puzzle. The employees who did more profitable work than responding to the FCC's demands were not working at some specific project nor a new service to be introduced nor negotiating contracts with new (paying) customers, but rather just doing normal work/ Google’s existing services would not be disrupted if the employees would answer the FCC's requests, but might be delayed. The ‘normal amount’ is very relevant. It is not along the lines of taking x percentage of sales, applied here to a free service Google provides. FCC’s punishments are not dated, but are perhaps misapplied for a company like Google. This was not a human error (like accusing Google for another company's errors). The amount was not doubled because they didn’t comply with the initial request. There was no error in computation and no person in particular is relevant. The normal amount was not 0 (in relevant currency) and was not less than the cost of an average person's weekly shopping. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 5171 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the normal amount small for a company the size of Google? Small for a company with the profits of Google? Is the normal amount a specific amount of dollars? Is it a percentage of something not related to Google? Is it related to the average of something? | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1474 Registered: 8-2001 |
Is the normal amount small for a company the size of Google? yes Small for a company with the profits of Google? yes Is the normal amount a specific amount of dollars? yes Is it a percentage of something not related to Google? no Is it related to the average of something? no | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1475 Registered: 8-2001 |
Ok, I think enough of the essential pieces are here. $poyur to follow | ||
| Wildcard (Wildcard)
New member Username: Wildcard Post Number: 1476 Registered: 8-2001 |
****** SPOILER ****** In April of 2012, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it was fining Google for deliberately impeding the agency's investigation into the company's collection of wireless data by its roaming Street View vehicles and that the agency had decided, based on Google's "ability to pay," that it needed to double its staff-proposed fine in order to "deter future misconduct." Hence, it raised Google's fine from $12,000 to $25,000. As pointed out by ProPublica.org, during the previous quarter year, Google made profits of $2.89 billion, or $25,000 every 68 seconds. As a result, Google was inclined to make no changes whatsoever. [ProPublica, 4-16-2012] I know this was a tough one. Thanks for the questions, I will post a new puzzle soon! |
