Re:Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expens...
by rmc on Saturday May 27, 2017 @10:07AM
(#14430108)
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess that Google has been recording internal things digitally for a while. It is a tech company.
Sure, it might not be as easy as "just a SQL query". But if they can make cars which drive themselves, they can figure this out.
Re:Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expens...
by albinofrenchy on Saturday May 27, 2017 @10:17AM
(#14430146)
Retro active datasets are commonly court ordered. Laws aren't retroactive, but all court proceedings are retrospective.
Googles 100k assertion here is bullshit. They did a calculation that handing that data over, or even just collating it, would leave them in a worse position than fighting it.
Re:Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expens...
by pfooti on Saturday May 27, 2017 @10:24AM
(#14430179)
To be fair, they could get the cost down to $74k if they had a woman do the research.
Re:Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expens...
by nickpeterson on Saturday May 27, 2017 @12:24PM
(#14430718)
Zing
That being said, and considering that a part of my job is to help gather data from 50+ différents sources with diferent data models, I can agree with google on one point. Gathering data from one point going forward is easy, gathering historical data from a system not designed with logging in mind is a huge pain.
As is usually forbidden in most democracy to issue a law with retroactive effects, it's maybe not a good thing to expect that retroactive dataset should be mandatory. That more of a work for historians and social-science researchers.