 It takes a rare legal case to capture the public imagination and an even rarer one to stay there. I want to talk about why Google Spain, and particularly in the context of search, is such a case. Why it's so fascinating, miserable and inexhaustible as a source of debate from boardrooms to dinner tables. This requires us to roam somewhat out of the usual terrain of lawyers. This case raises questions most importantly of power, particularly informational power. It's about promises, particularly the laws promises. And it's about privacy, particularly about privacy in a surveillance space economy. Before I get to those deep subterranean issues, I've been told I can be a bit provocative, so I'm going to take the opportunity and react a bit to some of what we've had this morning and the last probably much more diplomatic presentations. I have two outstanding challenges or concerns that I think date right back to when this case was decided. The first, and this might sound a bit shocking, is that we don't really know what we're talking about. Sure, we might know about the law, about institutions, about balances between rights and interests, but what we don't know is anything more than a vague notion of the problem we're trying to solve. 234,000 people have made requests. They range across the full spectrum of human experience, and yet Google has spoken publicly about 31 cases. Now we've had, I just counted another four from William, but we have no indication of their relative frequency, any sort of greater representation of which balances they involve, how complicated they are. We've heard the great majority of these requests are in fact a straight delisting yes or no, but in the cases that are complex do we need extra layers of intervention. And I'd argue this isn't just about extra detail or embellishment. It goes to the core of what we're trying to deal with. The paucity of information prevents us from actually developing robust, useful, enduring and considered solutions. It exacerbates misunderstanding, and it promotes ideological and intercultural conflict. It means that we, the citizens, are faced with appeals from a variety of actors who all have their own vested interests, whether it's from private companies, from regulators, from politicians and the media, all of which are saying, trust us, there's evolution in the system, but I would say it's still unsatisfactory. When I've spoken to people at search engines, I'm told that the detail can't be exposed because of privacy concerns. We don't want to talk about individual cases, but I'm not asking to be told that somebody stabbed their ex-girlfriend eight years ago and now cannot have a relationship anymore, or to ask about somebody's medical results and the particular details that have been put on an index. It's to know whether 2% or 20% of these queries involve criminal cases, the sorts of indications that William's talking about. It's to know whether the majority of these requests that concern the URLs that are under the most dominant number of requests come from Facebook. Are these people who are delisting results on their own name on posts that they themselves have made and are not utilising the opportunity within Facebook itself to take down results? Or are they things that another person has posted or indeed on some of the more despicable sites that you have on Facebook that are from people they don't know? What proportion of these concern mainstream media? The entire public debate has been about mainstream media outlets, but in the UK the mainstream publications, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph have all had between 30 to 60 delistings. That's a tiny proportion of 234,000 requests. So I think that we end up generalising from the particular if we don't have a greater understanding of the contours of the landscape. Now I'd say in this, it's not that I want to criticise what Google is doing, it's to improve the processes and so that we make sure that the law and the principles that we have are adapted to the problems we're actually trying to solve. I think that here the DPAs have an important role to play in leadership. Vilem talked about that they have 34 cases in the Belgian DPA, it's about 200 in the ICO. We should have those cases de-identified, some greater information. We shouldn't bury that information about how the cases are being dealt with. I think that we have a right to know how they're being dealt with. The other reason why I don't think this is about, sort of don't buy the defence that this is not about revealing private information is because if that concern was real we wouldn't be having the notifications to webmasters which from the webmasters I've spoken to again at those media publications it's trivial to re-identify from a notice because you can have a one-click search at the bottom of a Google search result on a European page and it flips across the Google.com so you can identify immediately just putting in the URL and the names in the article, who it's about. The second outstanding issue, if that's what we're talking about is who is talking. Every indication I've seen suggests that the bulk of these requests are about people with no public profile. They're victims of algorithmic failure. They're about normal people and they come from platform, they don't have a platform to redress speech with more speech. By contrast almost all of the people talking about the right to be forgotten do come from such a platform. Polling suggests that most people don't have information that they want delisted online but those that do really do learn that those who speak out most about the right to be forgotten are not representative of those who really are at stake. On that note, and this has been suggested on a number of occasions to be anecdotally but I don't think anyone said it in public I think there's a huge unacknowledged gender issue too in who is speaking about the cases and how the differential impacts of the right to be forgotten are. This is particularly the case in some of the examples that are brought up a lot in the media about revenge porn for example but I think that it's very usual. I've yet to see a panel where there's anything more than a couple of women speaking and I think that affects how we discuss these issues in public. So that's who is or is not talking and what we are or are not talking about. But let me get to why it matters. I said it's about power, promises and privacy. I think the Google Spain case is an externality of at least three much deeper issues. The first is about the vast informational power of search engines and particularly the search engine over so-called truth, memory and history as distinct from the comparatively disenfranchised individuals who create other subjects of and consume index content. The second, since I'm not going to just critique the private companies is about the fundamental tension between the aspirations of European data protection law and the capabilities and expectations of ordinary internet users and the third is what we might call the surveillance industrial complex of the 21st century. The force and hostility of many of the loudest reactions to the prospect of modifying search results on the basis of data protection requests shows the extent to which we have comprehensively and largely unwittingly come to rely on privately owned culturally biased black box services in navigating digital space. Without source the raw material, design and execution of multi-layered search strategies in return for easy, efficient interfaces and mysterious algorithms. They are of course wonderful and deservedly Google has benefited from the effects and economics of network effects gaining an extraordinarily dominant market share particularly in Europe, but this has created asymmetries of power. For Google, completeness and trust are essential virtues of search and this is why the case is so significant and why it has amassed extraordinary resources. By highlighting one way in which search results become incomplete and I'd say it's by far not the most significant way. Privacy requests are outnumbered 1,000 to one by copyright requests and we see no level of the same public debate but by highlighting one way that that search index is incomplete it brings the issue of consumer trust in Google to the forefront and it has knock on consequences for its financiers, the advertisers. From the beginning it's been identified by Google's founders that search engines driven by advertising are inherently biased towards advertisers and away from the needs of consumers and this explains this merchantability concern we have to keep at the heart of our consideration of these issues because it explains the enthusiasm for analogies like Google is a library card catalogue happily we haven't heard any of them today but curator of history, truth and memory and of course these imply a pure and neutral collation service rather than the one that operates dynamic statistics based search services over indexes that are only partially complete and of course for short of the much vast richer canvas of social history, truth and memory. So I think in all of this there's an opportunity for consumers and regulators to see search engines and other privatised engines of public space as not catalogues but also as dealers that can be optimised and gamed. We also have to confront an impossible conflict that has been maintained to date by intermediaries which is that when accused of bias they're exercising scientific opinion and when they're asked to address privacy they're merely neutral intermediaries. I think this is a real opportunity and we've seen a very willing approach to try to redress that imbalance but so far particularly on that copyright privacy concern we see the economic interests have driven what intermediaries have done rather than human interests personal interests. The number of the problem is that internet companies have been successful in making us believe that the internet is public space when it is just a representation of privately owned services. They are not public parts they're not the Greek Agora to build politics and the notion of public space is critical to democratic community oriented rule. If we concede that the internet is a public space then do we want privatised engines of Jeff Touch on this to be the custodians of our public records or do we want to have them accountable according to what we would traditionally have for public utilities. I think this issue is only just starting to be addressed in Europe as the sort of leader it's also in the competition case that's ongoing in Brussels and it's a question of how we deal with these private companies that are at the core of our public information goods. Since I have to move on I'm going to say this power dynamic floats into the second which is the question of the disconnect between European data protection law and how people use the internet. Even if, as Artemis said, the Spaniards championed this case on their lonesome and then the CJU was emboldened as Ola said. It has been the case that the entire debate has been quite narrowed by the rapid and somewhat idiosyncratic response of Google into the actual application of the decision. A lot of this has been validated by the regulators but we are dealing only with post hoc notice about whether information should or should not be processed. There's been no discussion of the issue of sensitive data which has under European data protection law a blanket ban. The issue has been constrained to name searches when in fact you give me three pieces of information your address, your profession and where you were and it might be very easy or an image it may be very easy to identify somebody. And the question of the regional localization has been dealt with through the frame of what is Google's version of national localization rather than anything that's IP address based or based on physical real location. I think that the general public has never really appreciated the staggering reach of European data protection law and this is the first time for many that they are grappling with it. I think that the system we have it's been promoted and is politically at the moment being championed as a real solution to our issues of privacy online but I think it's woefully inadequate. The clear normative core of data protection is missing and the reforms maintain some of those inadequacies. It may be and some of the more heretical advocates in this area talk about the fact that we may need to have more public law style remedies or obnisman style remedies rather than relying entirely on private agencies. I don't have time to get into that any more but I think that the final point the third aspect that I wanted to just say is that I do think that this case and the issues it embodies are a step towards data sovereignty and freedom in a never more connected reality where nearly every instance of our social and private lives is mediated by private companies. It's no exaggeration to say that this is about the struggle for freedom and control in a digital ecosystem that's defined by surveillance and it may be a fight in only a tiny corner of that ecosystem but it is important nonetheless. I haven't made that connect too strong but I think that the connection between having real and meaningful rights against ownership of personal data in private search engines is an essential first step. We don't countenance that possibility it's a litmus test of whether we could actually countenance it in any of our other interactions with digital media which becomes ever more important as we have ubiquitous computing environments.