 Diolch yn fawr, Mr Di Bwchler, yn rhan o'r cychwyn ac yn teimlo i'ch cychwyn i'r ddweud o'r rhaglen, mae'r cyfeirio i Gwyrdd David i Julia Unkenbridge o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r grwyfffyn o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, fynd i chi'n argyrchu, a wnaeth o'r cyfwyr i'n dod o'r cychwyn i'r dweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. ydych yn y ffyrthpanel, i'r brydau i'r cyfenni ac yn fawr y bwysig gyda'r gweithio'r casu ym melyn gan dydun. Felly mae'n ddu i'r cyfle bwysig wedi omdeg. Mae'n cael ei cyfnod o gweithio gwybodaeth Gwgol a'r gweithio I'na'ch cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod a Gwgol'r cyfnod o'r gweithio Gwgol o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod. Rwy'n amlwg, rwy'n amlwg y Llanmark yma, y Google maeth yn anodol yn fawr, yna dwi ddod i'n ddysgu'n gweithio y gallwn y tîm, rwy'n cael eu cyfleniau. A dyma'r gwybod ni'n meddwl i'r gweithio. Rwy'n gweithio'n meddwl o'r ddweud ar y tîm yn ei gilydd yma, oedd nifer 10 munud i'r effekt ar gyfer y tîm y gallwch yn gwneud y gweithiau oherwydd y Cymru yn y tîm y gweithiau. As of 23 March, and as is publicly available in our transparency report, which I'll talk more about in a minute, Google had received 843,000 individual delisting requests with respects to URLs, representing nearly 232,000 individual requests. Roughly speaking, we delist in 41% of cases, and declined to delist in 59% of cases. We publish a full transparency report at google.com slash transparency report, where you can see the statistics which are regularly updated in terms of the volumes of requests we're seeing and what our removal rates look like. There is also a national breakdown, so you can see what those statistics and percentages look like at a country level. So that's a lot of volume of stuff, and I think it's fair to say that's a lot of work. To individually assess, 843,000 URLs takes a bit of doing, and we moved very quickly to comply. We were very quick to launch a web form, setting up a process to manage these requests. We were very quick to engage with data protection authorities to hear what they had to say on the subject, and we listened to a wide spectrum of views through the advisory council process that we established. Now, let me say that our approach has been largely consistent with the recommendations of European experts and regulators, but there are still areas of disagreement, some of which I'll touch on when I talk today. Conflicts of law and jurisdiction are never easy, since fundamental rights are at stake, and fundamental rights are weighed differently in different countries and different parts of the world, but we are committed to listening to the debates across Europe as this issue evolves. So moving on to the experiences of the last 10 months, the first thing that we did after we read the judgment was to stand back and say, okay, we need to have a way of receiving these requests. We were conscious that we needed the right amount of data to do the job. We didn't want to create an open channel where basically individuals would supply more information than was relevant for our purposes in assessing their request, and so we thought to ensure that we were only collecting the right data from individuals. We would launch a web form, and we put a great deal of thought into the design of that web form and how it was structured. I'll call out the main pieces of information we ask for when someone wants to file a delisting request. We ask for the name used to search, more about that later. We ask for the contact email address. We also ask for an explanation for each URL, again, more on that later. And then we also basically then remove on name query searches. So that was very clear from the court's judgment that the ruling was limited to name query searches, and so not removing links for any or all search results pages, which could be overboard and is clearly not required by the ruling. We focused on EU users. Our web form makes it clear that individuals need to select a relevant country. Practically individuals will need some connection to that country, which will normally but not always mean that they have to be resident in it. Individuals need to select a country so that we know which law to apply because there are divergences of practice with national authorities, as I'll come on to in a minute. So it's clear which DPA the complaint should be remitted to. That's a practical problem, and our solution is the web form. We focused on EU domains. We currently remove an EU plus F to States. We noticed early on that some data protection authorities called for PAN EEA consistency, and we wanted to support that effort. The most logical legal interpretation of this opinion is actually for national removals, but for Google we thought it was right to take a PAN EEA approach to encourage consistency and harmonisation for individuals. When we remove a search result related to an individual's name, it will simultaneously be removed from all European versions of Google search. We do not remove on services targeted to non-European countries, including our USServiceon.com. When individualssearchon.com, we already redirect them to the local relevant domain and practice the vast, vast majority of our users use these local domains. We do not think the court's ruling is global in reach. It's an application of European law that applies to services offered to European consumers. We have a long-established way of complying with country-specific laws by removing from the version of our service that targets that country. For example, Google.de in Germany. This is how we've always processed national law removals for national law claims, like hate speech, to use one example and defamation to use another. The services in those domains are tailored for users in those countries in a number of ways. It's not just about legal compliance. They're intended to be the best experience for the user in that country overall. Another key aspect of Google's implementation of this judgment, we felt very deeply that we needed to be transparent about both the results and about the process that Google was running. So we have a generic notice at the bottom of our search results that when a user enters a name query search for most names about a person, that information will be displayed. Now, let me be clear that the notice that fires on the bottom of our search results page is not a notice that is fired with respect to any specific removal. It is a notice that is fired with respect to most named query searches. We think it's important to give our users information about the results that they are seeing and how those results have been compiled. Also, we think it's important to notify webmasters. This is consistent with their approach in other removals. We are giving webmasters the link, or URL, that will no longer appear in search results in response to a name query search, not any details of the request. We have long done this in other areas of law, not just for removals made on data protection grounds. We've also let people know on the web form so that they're aware that this will happen. We believe it's important to let third-party publishers know when we stop linking to their sites in response to some queries. We've already started seeing complaints from webmasters about the prospects of removing links to their sites, and we're already facing challenges from publishers about removal decisions that result in reduced traffic to their sites. We provide this feedback to ensure transparency and address those criticisms directly. We have received communications from webmasters that have caused us to re-evaluate removals and reinstate them. In some situations, third-party publishers may want to publish the underlying content. With the right to be forgotten, of course, we as Google, the data controller with respect to search, have a duty, have a legal obligation to assess each case. However, sometimes users may get the perception that filling out a form on Google removes it from the original source. Actually, notifying webmasters may alert the original source to the user's position with respect to the material in a way that actually produces a practical result for the individual. In others, webmasters can identify whether an accusation takes traffic away from their site or was mistaken or inaccurate. Next, I want to turn to this issue of what kind of information we have when we make the decision. Clearly, there's this large carve-out for public interest and we had to decide how to apply that. When we assess a request, we have the information from the web form and we have the material from the site. We do not have any information from the publisher or speaker and we think it's important to ensure balance in the process that we have that opportunity. There are, of course, no journalistic exemptions for search engines. That was made clear by the ruling. But at the moment, there is no established way for a publisher or speaker to feed back or to be aware that a particular name query search has been de-listed. We'll continue to give careful thought to these issues but we believe we're taking the right approach. However, we recognise that there's a spectrum of strongly held views on these issues across Europe within the privacy community and even differing views among European data protection authorities. As we continue to discuss these issues with data protection authorities and others, as we evolve our processes, we will continue to keep an open door and an open mind as to what comes next. For example, we recently introduced a policy not to send webmaster notifications to certain categories of sites such as malicious porn sites, as I have noted previously. As most of you know, the criteria laid down by the CGU were fairly vague. We worked hard to develop criteria to apply to the myriad of real-world situations, some of which I'm going to talk about, which we faced when dealing with the requests that came before us. It was a broad ruling with little guidance on application. Our challenge is to evolve our approach. We accept that our policies and practices will change over time based on what we hear from data protection authorities and what we hear from courts. In that respect, we welcome the guidance of the Article 29 Working Party. We were comforted by the fact that much of the removal criteria was similar to the removal criteria that we had already developed and were implementing, and actually that consistency between the approach that we were taking and the recommendations of the Working Party was comforting for me and others at Google. I want to turn a little bit to the guidelines and some of the ways that Google thinks about the issues internally and some of the trends that we're seeing. We want to be thoughtful and pragmatic about where we declined to D-Lest A big area is public figures where we have a general expectation that we will do fewer removals so it will give you a couple of examples of cases where we have refused to remove a footballer who wanted to remove a news article about his career highlights a TV star who wanted us to remove news articles about a recent sex scandal. It could also be a figure in the public eye because of what they do in their professional life. We've had removal requests covering a respected scientist who wanted to remove criticism of his scientific work and there are challenges here but even public figures basically when you're looking at these news stories you have to take into account that they have a public persona and a private persona and some of the calls are difficult and we're seeking to develop more nuanced criteria as we move forward. Another area of contention is news stories. When someone is mentioned as a meaningful part of a news story again that's a real indicator for us that that might be something that we would decline to D-Lest. If the source is a reputable news story if we're dealing with a recent article then clearly generally having access to this information we feel is in the public interest. So there are challenges around that. Another area of challenge is political speech and to give you some examples of areas where we've pushed back members of the government requesting removal of news articles about their corruption scandal. Police officers involved being convicted of bribery and corruption or having disciplinary charges in relation to bribery and corruption levied against them. Pushing back on a request from a member of government requesting the removal of posts of citizens criticising policies. These are real examples and there are really difficult examples in political speech. We get a lot from people who want to clean up their past at university. I was involved in a political society at university and I'm no longer active in public life and I want to remove or D-Lest name query search information in relation to the statements I made at that time. In some cases they say that when they are in fact running for political office. In some cases they say that when clearly what they are doing is trying to limit the field of information that is available online. So these are challenges and where we draw the line on these is something that we will continue to kind of evaluate. I want to move on to some trends then and some issues that we are seeing. Complaint volumes to data protection authorities from what we can see at this point are relatively low in relation to 840 odd thousand URLs we have received removal requests for. Very low, I put them in the hundreds. I see every one of them personally and I put them in the hundreds. But let me try and draw some of the things that we are seeing. We have got some data protection authorities who are ordering us to remove government records simply on the basis that the government site is the right place to find that government record and that there is no public interest in linking to from a search engine in response to a name query search. We have got some complex cases involving defamation where it is not clear to us or the data protection authority whether the content in question is true or not but we are nonetheless being ordered to remove and again I welcome and call out the article 29 working parties guidance on defamation in that respect. As one might expect the criteria on past crimes and when it is appropriate to remove a past crime diverge significantly nationally even if one has common criteria there are individual rules across Europe in various countries with respect to the treatment of past crimes and so we are seeing difference in standards there in the way that data protection authorities are approaching the issue. Recency is an issue we often get asked well how many years for this and how many years for that and we have to say well we have to adjudge each individual case in all of its merits so our approach is much more dynamic in that we look at a range of factors and we don't draw hard lines because that would be inappropriate and we also have as I mentioned before sensitive issue and political content and these issues tend to cause difficulties. We have got one case at the moment where we are being asked to remove a re-reported case so that something that had been removed and then a newspaper has reported on the fact that there was a removal and we have got one request from a data protection authority to remove that re-reported case. So some trends starting to emerge for sure I'd also like to call out the work of our advisory council we welcome all their advice and guidance and we are considering carefully how to implement that I'd also like to point out that advisory council members do not adjudicate on individual cases I think there has been some public misunderstanding about that. So to close which is handy because I've got the one minute flag so I seem to be at the right point in my preso. Our approach will not be static we know it will change over time and we know that data protection authorities will have guidance for us. We plan to learn through experience we remain committed to engaging in thoughtful collaboration with the working party and with individual data protection authorities to discuss these issues further In parallel across Europe national courts are starting to build a body of jurisprudence to interpret and apply the CG use over decision Over time collectively we're gaining experience in processing removals and developing a better understanding of the implications of the judgement We know that DPA's views will differ from our own in some cases just as DPA's would reach different decisions amongst themselves in some cases but we will only push a case if there is a public interest in clarifying the position We know that tough debates lie ahead such as on scope of removals and the rights of publishers in the process We think it's important to have those debates openly and respectfully Our door is open we're listening and we want to work with those in the room and data protection authorities as we move forward