Saturday, May 28

The Supreme Court confirms the conviction of a man who disclosed on Facebook that his ex-partner lived in a foster home

The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence of one year in prison and a fine of 1,865 euros against a man who posted on Facebook a document drawn up by social services documenting that his partner was forced to live for two months in a foster home. In a sentence handed down on June 17 and published this Tuesday, the magistrates of the Criminal Chamber have ratified the decision of the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca, which convicted the man for revealing secrets after he took control of him. document, digitize it and disseminate it on the social network.

A real estate agency takes a couple to court for protesting the quality of their homes in a neighborhood forum

Know more

In its 2019 sentence, the Court of Palma de Mallorca considered as proven facts that the convicted person “during the first months of 2017 published on the social network Facebook a document signed by a coordinator of the Punts de Trobada Familiar de Balears dated 6 April 2016 where it appeared that her sentimental ex-partner had been residing in a foster home during the months of December 2014 and January 2015, leaving that place without leaving a review of their new residence. ”

The man published on the same network comments directed at their son as “dirty, sleepy, liar, you like other people’s things, your mother is a very whore, she hides her address from me, she has no morality to raise you”, as well as “others equally derogatory “. All of this includes the judgment of the Court, “with the aim of damaging, with its indiscriminate dissemination to third parties, the image of who his partner had been and with whom he had a child.” The woman learned of this action from her ex-partner because the companions of their son taught her at school.

The convicted person filed a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court. His defense argued that the data published by the man could be considered “secret”, since the document that he uploaded to Facebook referred to “an event that had taken place three years before and that in no case affects intimate data of the complainant “.

In addition, the convicted person reflected in his appeal to the Supreme Court that he obtained the document “by legitimate means” and that its publication “was never aimed at obtaining any kind of benefit or causing any damage to the plaintiff.”

The Supreme Court has rejected these theses. “What is beyond any doubt”, reflected in the sentence, is that the man accessed the document and “in view of its content, used it by disseminating it on the Facebook social network in order to erode the privacy of her ex-partner who, years ago, had to resort to social services to find a place to spend the night. ”

In the text released by the accused, whoever came to it was asked to share it

“The damage is accredited by the expressive, and indignant, explanation of the woman when she found out about this diffusion because the son taught her it since her schoolmates made it clear to her, and in the text released by the defendant it was requested that whoever came to share it; logically she felt humiliated, “continues the text, whose speaker was Manuel Marchena.

Regarding the concept of “secret” in the social services document, the magistrates state that “undoubtedly” it refers to “reserved personal data” that the complainant has the right to keep out of public knowledge. “Do not forget that the data contained in a person’s social assistance history can even be data that can precipitate an image that is projected on the circle of privacy of any citizen. They can affect health, their circumstances family members or, finally, their level of poverty that justifies entering a foster home “, emphasizes the Supreme Court.

It reaches people, but also personal data mining companies

In its ruling, the Supreme Court also refers to the fact that publishing information on Facebook can not only damage the image of the person to whom it refers to others. It also gives, without your authorization, more personal data about it to companies that are dedicated to profiling users for advertising or other purposes.

“With its inclusion on Facebook”, the sentence highlights, the convicted person “authorized the knowledge and use of this data by all those companies interested in data mining and who make the knowledge of the profile of each citizen a source of wealth”.

The sentence has a particular opinion of the magistrate Antonio del Moral, who emphasizes that “the appellant is right when he argues that a judicial file, from whose content a photocopy of a certificate is obtained, is not nestable in the concept of file”, for what did not misappropriate the document and it could not be considered “reserved”. It also recalls that “of the plural and varied messages disseminated through social networks by the accused in intolerable terms (another thing is that they reach or not the entity to give life to criminal offenses against honor specified, in addition, to special requirements of prosecution ), only one is subject to condemnation: the least offensive. The gross disqualifications directed simultaneously against the ex-partner and the minor common son have led to an acquittal in the instance, not contested. ”