IP 25/2021

The accusing person complained that from a determinate profile of Twitter information was published about its|his|her|their penal antecedents, as well as its|his|her|their photograph|photography. He|She affirmed that the profile of Twitter was managed by police. But of the information brought (a screenshot of a message of WhasApp that a third person would have sent to its|his|her|their daughter, which|who contained the photograph|photography of the accusing person and the denounced information), the authorship of the same was not evident, and it was not seen either that it|he|she was a tweet.
The Authority started a phase of previous research to find out the denounced facts and could be evident that the denounced account|bill had been suspended by the social network to contravene the conditions of Twitter use, that from different|distinct user profiles several tweets had been made similar to the accusing facts and that the information about the penal antecedents and the photograph|photography had also been published by several digital media. Everything made think that the origin of the information was in the publications of the digital newspapers and in the debate of posterior opinion about the newsworthy facts that took place in Twitter. In this case, it could not be determined who was behind the profile of Twitter denounced, because the account|bill was suspended and no information could be accessed.