The guide says identity is not static — it changes over time and according to context. Digital records do neither, and the gap between them is where several real legal remedies came from.
A person changing over ten years while every record stays exactly as it was written.
Interactive diagram
Explore the labelled diagram, charts and maps for this topic in full study mode.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Identity also changes by context: everyone is slightly different at home, at work and among friends. Online those audiences arrive at once, so one presentation has to serve all of them.
Offline
- Different audiences, kept apart by place and time
- You choose what each one sees
- A joke among friends stays among friends
Online
- Every audience receives the same thing
- You cannot choose who reads it later
- A joke among friends is read by an employer in five years
Why this is examinable: Context collapse is not embarrassment. It is the reason a record made in one setting can be used to judge someone in a completely different one — which is a question about fairness, not about manners.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
Real-world examples you can name
Google Spain v AEPD — the right to be forgotten — Court of Justice of the EU, May 2014
A Spanish man asked for search results about a long-settled debt to stop appearing under his name. The court held that a search engine is a data controller and can be required to de-list results that are inadequate, irrelevant or excessive — without the original page being deleted.
Who it affected: Anyone in the EU asking a search engine to de-list results about them.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — in force since May 2018
A regulation giving people rights over data held about them — to see it, correct it, have it erased and take it elsewhere — and requiring a lawful basis before an organization may process it at all. Fines can reach 4% of a company's worldwide annual turnover.
Who it affected: Everyone in the EU, and any organization anywhere that handles EU residents' data.
What the remedy actually does: Google Spain v AEPD — the right to be forgotten (European Union, Court of Justice of the EU, May 2014) does not delete the page.
It de-lists the search result where the information is inadequate, irrelevant or excessive — a narrower and more workable remedy than “delete my past”.
How this is tested — you have to explain the gap between a changing person and an unchanging record, and judge what should be done about it. It comes up two ways:
Paper 1 — structured question
- Part b: explain why an old post can disadvantage someone
- Part c: evaluate a right to have information removed
Paper 2 — source-based question
- Q2: explain a claim a source makes about online permanence
- Q4: synthesise sources on reputation and records
The trap: “be careful what you post”: That is advice, not analysis. The question is what a society should do about records that outlive the person they describe.
Explain one reason why a record from several years ago can misrepresent a person now.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
To what extent should people be able to have information about themselves removed from search results?
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.