One of the problems that the digitisation of information (and more generally of our lives) has produced concerns the erasability of information about a person's past. I am thinking of inconvenient pasts – those linked to crimes committed in the past and served in terms of sentences, or those linked to defamation not confirmed by investigations, or those linked to illnesses that have greatly endangered the life of a person who is now out of danger, but whose access to certain careers or insurance is restricted because of that illness).These pasts are marked by a recurring semantic trait: guilt, even when dealing with unintentional events (the illness). And by a narrative trait that is never said, but clearly implied: the indelibility of that imprint. Semiotically, the idea of indelibility, of not erasability, is very ambivalent: semiotically speaking, can meanings be erased?? How does one erase 'blame' on the Internet? The problem is technical-informatic, legal, but in my opinion also and above all semiotic: how to 'rescue' the past from the scarlet letter of guilt? Is there a particular tendency in contemporary media to construct guilt? And in the present media economy, how long is guilt of interest? When does a fault or a guilt erase itself?