IT Forensics · Private Individuals

How can I have a fake profile created in my name officially documented?

Fake profiles may use another person’s name, photos and personal details.

Enquire without obligation

Why this question is important for private individuals

Digital attacks on reputation, identity or privacy can spread rapidly and have significant personal and financial consequences for those affected. Objective technical documentation helps to preserve ephemeral content and to distinguish speculation from verifiable digital facts.

Technical investigative approach

We document profile content, account identifiers, URLs, visible time information, messages and available technical references, and save comparative data from the genuine profile.

Where the limits of what can be said lie

The technical documentation of a fake profile does not automatically identify its operator.

Why LanCologne?

In cases of digital blackmail, defamation or identity theft, there is often considerable time pressure and a need to act swiftly. Content may be deleted, profiles renamed and messages withdrawn. At the same time, a rapid backup must not lead to hasty technical conclusions.

LanCologne therefore distinguishes between several levels: What was actually published or sent? Which account did the content come from? What original files and metadata are available? Can several events be technically linked to one another? And what additional information would be needed to trace an account or infrastructure back to a natural person?

That last question is particularly important. A profile name, a telephone number, an IP address or a hosting service do not automatically constitute a person’s identity. Provider and platform data may, where necessary, only become available through legal or regulatory proceedings.

We prefer original data and full context to isolated screenshots. Screenshots remain important evidence when online content is ephemeral, but are supplemented wherever possible by URLs, account identifiers, original messages, files and other independent artefacts.

The investigation remains open-ended. LanCologne documents what has been technically proven, what constitutes mere circumstantial evidence, and what cannot be answered on the basis of the available data.

How we work

1Give priority to any immediate personal or financial risks.
2Document ephemeral online content promptly, providing context.
3Retain original messages and files wherever possible.
4Back up account identifiers, URLs, timestamps and relevant metadata.
5Compare screenshots with primary data and other sources.
6Record changes, name changes and deletions in chronological order.
7Technically link multiple profiles only where the characteristics are reliable.
8Make a strict distinction between accounts, IP addresses, devices and natural persons.
9Never use AI/deepfake detectors as the sole evidence.
10Assess incriminating and exculpatory findings using the same criteria.
11Identify data gaps and specify the required provider and investigation data.
12Prepare a report that is clear and can be verified by experts.

An account is not the same as a natural person

A key forensic principle in this field is accurate attribution. Profile names, telephone numbers, IP addresses, email addresses or devices can serve as important points of reference. However, they must not be equated with a specific individual without additional reliable data.

Ephemeral online content should be preserved along with its context

If a post or profile is likely to be deleted at a later date, it is advisable to document it at an early stage. In addition to the visible content, the URL, account ID, time stamp, full context and original files – where available – are important. The process of securing this information should not delay any necessary protective or police measures in the event of an immediate threat.

Why LanCologne for digital attacks on identity and reputation?

LanCologne does not attempt to use technical evidence to identify a perpetrator as quickly as possible. We secure the available evidence, reconstruct the digital sequence of events and clearly identify which conclusions are reliable. This ensures that the report remains comprehensible to private clients whilst also being verifiable from a technical perspective by solicitors, investigating authorities, the courts or other qualified IT forensic experts.

Legal framework

Depending on the circumstances, various provisions of the Criminal Code may be relevant. Section 253 of the Criminal Code deals with blackmail. In the case of threats, insults or defamatory allegations, Sections 240, 241 and Sections 185 to 187 of the Criminal Code (StGB) may be relevant, subject to their respective conditions. However, the technical preservation of a post does not automatically determine which criminal offence has been committed in a particular case.

In the event of repeated digital impersonation, Section 238 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) may become relevant. Unauthorised access to data subject to special security measures may be relevant under the conditions set out in Section 202a of the German Criminal Code (StGB). Section 201a of the German Criminal Code (StGB) may be applicable to certain images or the making of such images available. In the case of manipulated digital data relevant to the evidence, Section 269 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) may need to be considered, depending on the facts of the case.

With regard to portraits, the Artistic Copyright Act contains provisions in Sections 22 and 23 governing their distribution and public display. In addition, the general right of personality, as well as civil law claims for injunctions and removal, may be relevant. Which legal basis for a claim is applicable in a specific case is a matter for legal advice.

The Protection Against Violence Act may allow for court-ordered protective measures in the event of certain forms of threats, stalking or repeated attempts to make contact. It is not for the IT forensic expert to decide whether the conditions for this have been met or which measure should be applied for.

In the case of ephemeral digital content, producing technical documentation at an early stage may be helpful for subsequent legal or regulatory proceedings. However, LanCologne does not comment on whether privately backed-up content is admissible in court in every case, nor on the evidential value the court may attribute to it.

LanCologne is limited to the technical establishment of facts. Criminal assessments, civil claims, strategies for seeking injunctions and the judicial assessment of evidence remain the preserve of solicitors, investigating authorities and the courts.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can I have a fake profile created in my name officially documented?
Digital attacks on reputation, identity or privacy can spread rapidly and have significant personal and financial consequences for those affected. Objective technical documentation helps to preserve ephemeral content and to distinguish speculation from verifiable digital facts.
How is such a technical investigation carried out in practice?
We document profile content, account identifiers, URLs, visible time information, messages and available technical references, and save comparative data from the genuine profile.
Can such an investigation always produce a clear result?
The technical documentation of a fake profile does not automatically identify its operator.
Is there a legal basis for this?
Depending on the circumstances, various provisions of the Criminal Code may be relevant. Section 253 of the Criminal Code deals with blackmail. In the case of threats, insults or defamatory statements of fact, Sections 240, 241 and Sections 185 to 187 of the StGB may be relevant, subject to their respective conditions. However, the technical preservation of a post does not automatically determine which offence has been committed in a specific case. In cases of repeated digital stalking, Section 238 of the StGB may be relevant. Unauthorised access to particularly secure data may be relevant under the conditions set out in Section 202a of the StGB. Section 201a of the StGB may be relevant in relation to certain photographic images or their publication. In the case of manipulated digital data relevant as evidence, Section 269 of the StGB may need to be examined, depending on the facts of the case. With regard to portraits, the Artistic Copyright Act (Kunsturhebergesetz) contains rules in Sections 22 and 23 on distribution and public display. In addition, the general right of personality, as well as civil law claims for injunctions and removal, may play a role. Which legal basis for a claim is applicable in a specific case is a matter for legal advice. The Protection Against Violence Act may enable judicial protective measures in the case of certain forms of threats, stalking or repeated attempts to make contact. It is not for the IT forensic expert to decide whether the conditions for this are met and which measure should be applied for. In the case of ephemeral digital content, early technical documentation may be helpful for subsequent legal or regulatory proceedings. However, LanCologne makes no statement as to whether privately secured content is admissible in court in every case, or what evidential value the court attaches to it. LanCologne is limited to the technical establishment of facts. Criminal law assessments, civil claims, injunctive relief strategies and the judicial assessment of evidence remain the preserve of solicitors, investigating authorities and courts.

LanCologne – IT Forensics for Private Individuals

Do you have a digital enquiry? LanCologne can assist you with an objective, unbiased IT forensic investigation.

Get in touch now