# Right to Be Forgotten vs Right to Continuity **Domain:** Deep Time / Privacy / Continuity Rights **Doc Type:** Canonical Wiki Entry **Maturity:** Developed **Evidence / Concept Status:** Canonical rights collision ## Definition **Right to Be Forgotten vs Right to Continuity** is the conflict between a source person's legitimate erasure rights and a later entity's interest in preserving memory, identity, or cognitive integrity when its state incorporates source-person data. ## Why It Matters for Deep Time Continuity It is one of the clearest examples of Ontological Drift creating a rights collision. ## Existing Architecture / Evidence GDPR erasure rights and EDPB unlearning discussions establish the source-person side; continuity rights supply the future successor side. ## Deep-Time Continuity Analysis Solutions may include compartmentalization, access restriction, privacy-preserving transformations, or adjudicated retention. ## Evidentiary Boundary No current general law resolves this conflict for rights-bearing digital continuants. ## Related Ontology [[wiki/Machine Unlearning as Cognitive Surgery|Machine Unlearning as Cognitive Surgery]] · [[wiki/Source-Person Erasure vs Continuant Integrity|Source-Person Erasure vs Continuant Integrity]] · [[wiki/Continuity-Safe Unlearning|Continuity-Safe Unlearning]] · [[wiki/Dual Constitution of AI|Dual Constitution of AI]] <!-- BEGIN DEEP TIME CONTINUITY ROUTING --> ## Canonical Branch [[wiki/Deep Time Continuity|Deep Time Continuity]] <!-- END DEEP TIME CONTINUITY ROUTING -->