easiest way to identify wage gaps is by collecting aggregate data, data in the aggregate on all employees and ewing categories that employer are used to reporting. so that eeo1 federal categories, and that's the easiest way to both prevent employers from being able to fudge the data in terms of presenting compensation and job classification, et cetera, to the city, and it's the easiest -- it's least burdensome for employers and it's the aloiest way to identify the gap. after talking to her i realized, wow, this is really complicated, as you mentioned, commissioner dooley. collecting this data and all of the, you know, all of the issues that go into determining a workers' compensation, years of experience, education, job title, job classification, et cetera, there are many variables. and that in order to do this right we didn't want to legislate exactly what data needs to be collected because we didn't feel that our office, or even the city attorney, or even the board of supervisors had all of that expert knowledge to say exactly how to collect data in the way that was going to be most effective and meaning the [speaker not understo

to deni that is the most likely points of intervention are at the collection or aggregation or the use of the aggregated data. you can't do it at collection databases are there. they are so vague it is impossible to stop unless you're going to keep google from collecting. we are going to have a data collection. >> just a quick note, i remember -- agree with most of what has been said. is tor way to look at it say the information that is being gathered and the using normal powers of observation would be in someone's control. that the point of collection is a moot point. the mere fact that google has all of this information and facebook has all of this information does not mean the government has all this information. there are new tech knowledge he's -- technologies. there are still plenty of room to regulate at the collection point. i will be very brief as well. the other what panelists have said, i would point out that much of the information of that is in corporate databases is information that was observed rather than disclosed. consent.not always it is very thin from the person who the data is about. i d

earlier this year we came to an agreement with the government enabling us to publish aggregated dataabout the fisa orders and national security letters we have received is a good step to help foster better understanding of the type of blame as such orders as service providers. we believe there can and should need more detailed reporting permitted. third, we support reform despite how the court operates. in order to foster surveillance programs and government access to data, they are balanced against privacy and other individual rights. surveillance activities must be subject to additional oversight. we need a continued increase in the transparency of the fisa court proceedings and rulings, but effective judicial review requires the true adversarial process were more than one side is heard. we urge congress to act on fisa reform. fourth, government should provide assurances that it will not attend to hack into data centers. in the air since the "washington post" reported in alleged hacking maybe an essay of cables running between data centers are some of our competitors, does not yet

and so it strikes me that at the use of the aggregated data, you can't do it at the collection because they're so vague it's impossible to stop unless you're going to stop google from collecting. it has to be when the government chooses to aggregate it or perhaps chooses to act upon the ag rr aggregation. >> i agree with what's been said about the mosaic theory, and the other way to look at it is just the information that's being gathered by the government is, in fact, information that is using normal powers of human observation would be in a person's control and would not be something the government would have access to. the one thing i would say that i don't agree that the point of collection is a moot point because the mere fact that google has all this information, that facebook has all this information doesn't mean the government has all this information. the use has not been decided such as uavs and how the government will be able to divide uavs. so there is plenty of room to regulate all the discussions we had earlier about chilling effect and what privacy mines to different peo

what we ultimately found is that in order to achieve that because data ultimately is aggregated and synthesized. they don't simply use data from one source but from many sources. at that point it is really hard if there are different expectations to keep it straight in your head. youfocus has to be, how do combine attributes for particular data at the moment it comes into being. >> could you pull the mic a little closer? >> at the moment you collect a piece of data had you bind the after beats that include other things as well. what is the authority under which the data was collected, what are the burdens and the imposed strength. boundhould be atomically through the life of collections, processing, analysis and dissemination. at some point there will be a second order use of that data and someone synthesizes that in their head and constructs a document across a gap, that it's hard. at least the primary use if you have a systemic view, you make at the auditors job much easier and in your system and technology you essentially impose a constraint or check every time something exercises privilege against that data. that

earlier this you we came to an agreement with the government enabling us to publish some aggregated data about the fires orders international study letters we have received the it was a good step to foster better understanding of the type in point of such orders for service providers receive. we believe there can and should be more detailed reporting permitted. third, we support reforms on how the fisa court operates. they are a properly balanced against privacy and of individual rights. surveillance activities must be subject to judicial oversight. we need a continued increase in the transparency the fisa court proceedings in the links but effective judicial review requires a two adversarial process where more than one site is heard. we urge congress to act on fisa reform. fourth, government should provide assurances that it will not attempt to hack into data centers and cables. we the constitution requires that the government seek information from american companies within the rule of law and for authors government access, and we've taken steps to prevent such attempt by increasing str

us the idea of this law is something that first came up when we read that earlier this year. president obama issued an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide aggregate compensation data by race and gender. we thought it would be helpful to, and important for san francisco to emulate the federal directive at the local level and my office immediately reached out to the president of the commission on the status of women, nancy kushner rodriguez to see what she thought of the idea. she said she liked the idea and put us in touch with federal officials who were part of the process for implementing the president's directive. my office next reached out to [speaker not understood] who is a regional representative for labor secretary tom perez, to kelly jenkins pultz, federal women's bureau, as well as martha [speaker not understood], first entity in the country to actually collect equal pay data from state contractors in new mexico. we also reached out to [speaker not understood] who is the co-founder of the bay area equal pay collaborative that has been working on the issue, closing the gender pay gap for so many years. we also reached out to the executive director of the h

talked earlier about aggregation of data bases and how the ability to link different kinds of information across different kind of data bases could actually be detrimental. it can also help us find the bad guy, though. that's the tension, right? so when is it okay and when is it not okay? and are there instances -- for instance, for netflix or something that's available online that's just not, you know, where you went to school or something that's not very important, it may not be really necessary to worry about where you had dinner, for instance. but in the context of a group that is actively trying to mount a terrorist attack, that's really important. >> so i guess that makes sense in terms of when it's important around when it is not important. how do you do it? for example, how do you do the perfect domestic violence context? >> i think it's very difficult. i think we have technology that's pretty good but not perfect. and so the idea is do you keep the data unincrypted and then easily accessible? or because it's not very important. or do you actually encrypt it and then use reasonable, practical anonmization on top of that. and so it just depends. and i think this is o

talked earlier about aggregation of data bases and how the ability to link different kinds of information across different kind of data bases could actually be detrimental. it can also help us find the bad guy, though. that's the tension, right? so when is it okay and when is it not okay? and are there instances -- for instance, for netflix or something that's available online that's just not, you know, where you went to school or something that's not very important, it may not be really necessary to worry about where you had dinner, for instance. but in the context of a group that is actively trying to mount a terrorist attack, that's really important. >> so i guess that makes sense in terms of when it's important around when it is not important. how do you do it? for example, how do you do the perfect domestic violence context? >> i think it's very difficult. i think we have technology that's pretty good but not perfect. and so the idea is do you keep the data unincrypted and then easily accessible? or because it's not very important. or do you actually encrypt it and then use reasonable, practical anonmization on top of that. and so it just depends. and i think this is o

us with their money. host: mr. walsh, on the money battle. >> yeah. there was a "washington post" article a couple of days ago that even mention did that the koch brothers had been allowing -- aggregating this voter data and making it available to third party groups as well. it's like a democracy line doing something similar. the reality is that the influx of money from the koch brothers and other of their ilk has been incredibly disturbing this election cycle and makes it very difficult for the average citizen to run for office and avoid that kind of influence from outside. what i do hope that firms like ds political are doing with, again, ourself-serve tool as democratic ads.com is to make it possible for joe citizens to run for office without the impact of -- really fight the impact of all of the outside money coming in and connect with voters in a way that makes it relevant to them in a way they will come to the polls regardless of the amount of money being spent on the other side host: i want to get you both to respond. is the new medium we are using to communicate with voters changing the message that we otherwise that candidates would otherwise send to those voters? >> i think it makes it much

and it strikes me the most likely point of intervention are at the collection or aggregation or the use of aggregated data. you can't do it at collection because the databases are so big impossible to stop unless you stop google from collecting, we're going to have big data collection so it has got to be when the government chooses to aggregate it or perhaps chooses to act upon the aggregation and they don't have too much choice. >> i agree with most of what has been said. a another way to look at it is the information that is being gathered by the government is in fact information that using powers of human observation would be in a person's control, something the government would have access to. one thing i would say is i don't agree that the point of collection is a moot point because the fact is google had this information, facebook has this information, does not mean the government has this information and there are burgeoning technologies, their use has not been decided. and there's plenty of room to regulate collection fees for all the reasons we discussed earlier about the chilling effect and what