Can you really delete your digital past? Here's how the UK's right to be forgotten works
Old comments on Twitter or Facebook posts have the ability to haunt you long after they went live but one UK law gives you the right to have them erased. Yet many don't know it exists, here's what you need to know about the right to be forgotten.
Bringing up old tweets and posts has become somewhat routine whenever someone steps into the spotlight. The result of these airings of old posts has left many with damaged reputations, lost jobs, or derailed opportunities - no matter how long ago the mistake was made.
We all have things we'd rather leave in the past, but the phrase 'the internet never forgets' makes it feel impossible. Yet under UK law, you actually might have more control over your online history than you think. Here's how the Right to Be Forgotten works, and what it means in practice.
What is the Right to Be Forgotten?
The Right to Be Forgotten, also known as the Right to Erasure, is a data protection law that allows individuals to request the removal of their personal data from search engines and online platforms. Introduced in 2014 and strengthened under GDPR, it can apply to anything from old news articles and blogs to social media posts that are no longer relevant.
Who can request it and when?
Anyone can make a request, either directly or through a parent, guardian or legal representative. It applies when the data is no longer needed for its original purpose, when consent for its use has been withdrawn, when the individual objects to its use and the objection is upheld, if the data was processed unlawfully, or when erasure is required by law.
Can everything be deleted?
Not every request will succeed. Organisations can refuse if the data is needed to comply with legal obligations such as tax or financial records, if keeping it serves a clear public interest or if the data has been anonymised and cannot be linked back to you, or if it is needed to defend legal claims or protect free speech.
How to apply for the Right to Be Forgotten
To start applying for the right to be forgotten, you should identify the specific URLs you want removed and the search terms that lead to them, which is usually your name. Prepare a clear justification explaining why the information is outdated, irrelevant or no longer in the public interest, and include proof of identity and any supporting documents.
Search engines like Google have online forms for submitting requests, but you can also contact them by email or post.
Why it matters in the age of cancel culture
Cancel culture thrives on the idea that the internet never forgets, with old posts - sometimes written in someone's teenage years resurfacing and sparking public backlash and even job losses. For those who've grown, apologised and moved on, the Right to Be Forgotten acknowledges that there are times when it's no longer fair to keep mistakes in the public eye.
Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
MTG again lashes out at Trump this time over his AI plan: ‘An absolute threat to federalism'
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch ally of the MAGA movement, broke from President Donald Trump on Thursday to oppose his executive order on artificial intelligence, raising concerns about its impact on the environment and states' rights. Hoping to accelerate the United States's development of AI, Trump signed a series of executive orders on Wednesday, making it easier to build data centers on federal lands and incentivizing states to impose fewer regulations by threatening to withhold federal funding to AI projects. But Greene raised a red flag, saying she was concerned with the impact of massive data centers on the people and environment around, while providing little to no regulations. 'My deep concerns are that the EO demands rapid AI expansion with little to no guardrails and breaks. It also contains the threat of withholding federal funds from states who regulate AI, which is an absolute threat to federalism and why I strongly opposed the AI state moratorium originally in the BBB,' Greene wrote on X. Trump has pushed for more AI development in the U.S., hoping for companies such as Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Microsoft to develop and expand their AI technology beyond what the Chinese-based company DeepSeek has already done. But the Georgia congresswoman said the 'rushed AI expansion' should include a plan to address human and environmental impact – with particular concerns around using nearby water supplies that cross state lines. 'Competing with China does not mean become like China by threatening state rights, replacing human jobs on mass scale creating mass poverty, and creating potentially devastating effects on our environment and critical water supply,' Greene wrote. 'This needs a careful and wise approach. The AI EO takes the opposite.' Greene's statement is the latest in a string of opposing stances that she has taken against Trump, whom she has typically expressed unwavering loyalty to. Recently, Greene has also criticized the administration for not releasing the Epstein Files, a recent Trump-backed crypto bill, and the president's decision to intervene in the Iran–Israel conflict by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. Her additional opposition also comes at a moment of contention between the president and his MAGA base. Trump's dismissal of the Epstein Files, of which conspiracy theories have floated in the MAGA world for years, appears to have caused a fracture in his base's trust. It's unclear how many may feel about the AI bill, but Greene's opposition provides some insight. 'I represent the base and when I'm frustrated and upset over the direction of things, you better be clear, the base is not happy,' Greene said on X back in May.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Yvette Cooper condemns Nigel Farage's criticisms of police
Yvette Cooper has condemned Reform UK for criticising the policing of protests outside a hotel for asylum seekers. The home secretary said officers deserved public support instead because they kept the country safe. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, called for Ben-Julian Harrington, the chief constable of Essex, to resign after his force escorted anti-fascist protesters through a crowd of people demonstrating against migrants. But Cooper said: 'The police do a really important job across our country keeping people safe. It is really important frankly that people support our police rather than just attacking them continually. As we have seen, Reform is one day calling for chief constables to resign, the next it is attacking women police officers who are out on our streets every single day of the week.' Farage has repeatedly weighed into the debate about the Epping migrant hotel and said earlier this week: 'Hard-left groups, Stand Up To Racism and Antifa, were given the red carpet treatment by Essex police, with the force literally escorting and bussing masked thugs to and from the protest. They have been caught redhanded helping to light the fuse that led to violence.' Harrington said Reform's claims were 'categorically wrong' and that officers had organised a cordon around activists exercising their right to protest. Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent for the Metropolitan police, said Farage's claims were wrong and he should correct the public record amid rising tensions. 'British values mean if a politician makes a mistake, they put their hand up and acknowledge it. He knows it is false,' Babu said. Police arrested 16 people after a heated protest last week outside the Bell hotel in Epping, where another demonstration was held on Thursday evening. Hundreds of protesters, including many women and children, began marching from Epping town centre to the hotel at around 6pm in heavy rain. A ramped-up police operation included fences and a ban on the wearing of facial coverings. Activists from the far-right Homeland group were behind an Epping Says No! Facebook group that has been behind much of the promotion of the protests. Members of Patriotic Alternative and White Vanguard have also been involved. While politicians have largely stayed away from the protest, two Reform councillors were present outside the Epping hotel last week, including James Regan who claimed in an interview that 'they're trying to dilute the Englishness out of us'. The Guardian also found evidence that a Reform official shared a platform in Epping with an agitator from Homeland. In last year's summer riots, Keir Starmer, the prime minister, called out 'far-right thuggery' and pledged to bring those involved to justice. However, the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, said on Thursday that many of the Epping protesters were 'upset for legitimate reasons'. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, told the cabinet earlier this week that immigration and deprivation were among the main factors causing public disenchantment with politicians. There is already a taskforce on community cohesion, informed by experts and officials, while a £1.5bn 'plan for neighbourhoods' aims to invest in 75 deprived areas over the next decade. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Some Labour MPs are concerned that political and media language about the UK being on the brink of social unrest might be raising tensions rather than encouraging cohesion. Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, said on Thursday that if people were 'unsettled by the political and press debate around immigration, law and order, the idea that there could be race riots again, you are completely right to be concerned because this discussion in itself is raising fear and uncertainty and tension'. She added: 'It is dividing us and feeding this myth that Britain is a nation that cannot manage diversity rather than one that draws strength from it.' Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo, a Labour MP, was murdered by a far-right extremist, said the UK needed a longer-term strategy on social cohesion. 'There is a set of local concerns around this in Epping and it's also true that these are being co-opted and used by elements of the far right,' said Cox, who is the convener of an independent commission on community. 'It's no surprise that happens when there are these kind of festering legitimate concerns and successive governments are seen to not act on those. But the broad point I'd make is that we've published a report about there being a tinderbox … and I think what's really clear is that we don't really have any long-term cohesion strategy at all.' Nick Lowles, of the Hope not Hate campaign group, said: 'We are concerned that policing has not caught up with the new post-organisation nature of the far right, where individuals can emerge and play a role on social media and inciting or directing violence, without ever being a member of a far-right organisation.' David Blunkett, the Labour peer and former home secretary, said policing unrest fuelled by the far right was always difficult but the key was 'specialist dog-trained police units and an online understanding of what they are doing' – as well as the Home Office involving MI5 at an early stage. The Epping protest was sparked by the charging of Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a 38-year-old asylum seeker, with sexual assault over allegedly trying to kiss a girl of 14. He denied the charge at Chelmsford magistrates court and will stand trial next month. A Reform official would not answer questions about sharing a platform with the far right or about Cooper's claims that the party should back the police. Instead the spokesperson said the Guardian 'cares more about attacking Reform UK than defending young girls who are being abused by illegal boat migrants'.
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Get every child under 13 off social media immediately, minister tells tech giants
Every child in the UK under the age of 13 must be barred from social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, the Technology Secretary has said. In an interview with The Telegraph, Peter Kyle said he was aiming for '100 per cent' enforcement of the new laws, which come into force on Friday, requiring tech firms to block children aged under 13 from their platforms. He said he 'expected' the estimated 1.8 million children aged eight to 12 in the UK who already have social media accounts to be removed from the sites. 'I cannot see the circumstances where online activity under 13, when it comes to social media, is ever appropriate. So in this instance, it is right that the Government sets this baseline from which parents can build appropriate boundaries for their families,' said Mr Kyle. 'I've not met anybody within these companies that thinks it is appropriate or that allows their own children to use these products under the age of 13. So we should be working together to solve this issue.' 'Partnering with parents' Asked if that meant the 60 per cent of eight to 12-year-olds with social media accounts should be thrown off, he said: 'I would expect them to be removed and for the law to be rigorously enforced. 'It's going to be really hard for kids who have access that will now have it taken away. It is tough, but we're on the side of parents here. 'Parents repeatedly tell me that once they're on [social media], it is a constant battle between parent and child to get it out of their hands, particularly interrupting study time, bedtime and family time. So we are now partnering with parents, giving them the baseline to move forward.' The tech firms have been told they must either ensure their minimum age limits of 13 are properly enforced, or radically overhaul their sites to make content safe enough for the tens of thousands of underage children currently using them. The measures are part of new children's codes set by the regulator Ofcom, which require companies to block their access to harmful content, including suicide, self-harm, violence or misogyny, from July 25. From Friday, firms hosting porn will also be required by law to introduce 'highly effective' age checks such as credit cards, photo ID matching and digital ID services to prevent any under-18s accessing their sites. The top 10 adult websites, which account for 40 per cent of porn site users, have signed up to these age checks along with over 6,000 other sites including Elon Musk's X, Grindr and Reddit. Those that fail to implement age checks at the ages of 13 and 18 will face fines of up to 10 per cent of their global turnover or be banned from operating in the UK. Mr Kyle said Ofcom must not hesitate to use its powers, including blocking sites to 'send the message that access to the British economy and society is a privilege, not a right'. At least half a dozen tech firms, including a suicide forum and micro-blogging site, have already withdrawn from the UK market by geo-blocking users rather than comply with the Online Safety Act. The changes on Friday follow the implementation in March of tougher bans on illegal online content including child sex abuse, terrorism and fraud. However, Ofcom's new powers are considered more significant for protecting children from 'legal' harms such as suicide and self harm content, which are blamed for 14-year-old Molly Russell taking her own life. Mr Kyle said the move represented the 'biggest step change in the experience of young people online since the internet was created'. It also marks the culmination of an eight-year campaign by The Telegraph for a statutory duty of care on tech giants to protect children from online harms. On behalf of the Government, he offered an apology: 'My other reflection is the huge apology we owe young people who are over the age of 13 and yet lived in the online smartphone era. 'They were unprotected from the vile, harmful and damaging forces that made their way into their feeds without any restraint. I and we as a society owe them an apology, and I certainly offer it with all sincerity.' Mr Kyle said the changes would mean tech bosses, who can face up to two years in jail under the laws for persistent breaches of regulations, would 'live in anxiety' rather than the children who have previously been fed 'harmful content'. 'It means that people who peddle harmful and criminal content will finally be the people who live in anxiety, because we can and we will come after them if they continue to peddle their content,' said Mr Kyle. 'I expect the law to be enforced to the full extent of the powers that Parliament has granted.' He also warned there would be tough penalties for tech firms that tried to circumvent the new laws with, for example, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) where users can disguise their IDs and bypass blocks on content. 'If platforms or sites signpost towards workarounds like VPNs, then that itself is a crime and will be tackled by these codes,' said Mr Kyle. 'If a company directly delivers harmful content into the feeds of children, it is the arrival into their feeds which is the offence. If they direct children via other means to that content, it has the same outcome.' He confirmed the Government was considering further measures to combat the 'addictive' nature of social media by introducing two-hour caps on app time and curfews to limit use before bedtime. They are expected to be unveiled in the Autumn. 'In the offline world, parents set boundaries on diet, exercise, social networks and sleep time but we've never had that conversation about the online world. It's time we did,' said Mr Kyle. He added: 'It is not telling parents how to parent, but offering tools to parents to set the kind of family life that they think appropriate.' Mr Kyle revealed that at every meeting with tech bosses, he imagined there was a camera in the room where parents like Molly Russell's father who lost their children in online tragedies could watch him. 'Would they feel their views and their children's experiences had been represented? I hope that they would,' he said. 'Some of those conversations I've had have been uncomfortable and ended uncomfortably.' He said that was the reason why he was aiming for all harmful content to be removed from children's feeds. 'I'm aiming for 100 per cent but I need to be realistic with people,' he said. 'If we take steps forward where 70, 80, or even more per cent of vile, hateful, damaging content disappears from children's feeds, that's a win that I'll take to the bank and move forward from. 'But these companies have the capacity to allow hundreds of millions, if not billions, of posts to go online rapidly. Don't tell me they don't have the infrastructure that enables it to be removed too. 'This Act has been one of the longest pieces of legislation in gestation, in its passage through Parliament and its pathway to implementation, than any other. They have had time. They have seen the direction of travel. Now it's time to act.'
