Per this NGram, from information provided by is over twice as common as from the information provided by. Personally, I think that preference would be even stronger if I could generate a chart comparing from [the] information provided by the, because it's stylistically a bit ugly to include the first [optional] article when it's closely followed by another [probably, non-optional] article.
Note that information is a "non-count" noun. If we consider alternative phrasing with a countable noun such as statement, we're contrasting...
1a: He was identified using the information the boy gave
1b: He was identified using information the boy gave
2a: He was identified using the statement the boy gave
2b: He was identified using a statement the boy gave
2c: He was identified using statements the boy gave
Pedants might argue that 1b/2b imply she gave other information/statements that weren't used in the identification process (or that the information/statement refers to something previously mentioned), but in my opinion that's, well, pedantic. The plural usage in 2c is relatively uncommon simply because in the real world the boy probably didn't give multiple statements (even if he did, perhaps only one aided the identification).
In short, for OP's exact context there's no significant semantic aspect to the inclusion of the article. Idiomatically we tend not to in any case, but it's not a very strong preference, and any apparent "deviation from the norm" would be even less likely to be noticed if there weren't another article following...
3: He was identified using the information little Johnny gave