In any event, it was reported that it was possible to "revive" a disconnected system, subject to a judicial order, and provide the police with data on vehicle movements. This is how Ituran acted in this case (p. 2644). It is said that after an accident, to the extent that the Ituran device transmits data, it will always be accurate, and it is not possible that distorted data will be stored (p. 2628). It was also stated that at the time of sale (for example), insofar as the buyer is not interested in the service of the Ituran system, a logical disconnection is made and not a physical disconnection is made (p. 2638, para. 33). In other words, the "unit" (the locator device) remains in the vehicle. In the present case (p. 2650), the subscriber was allegedly disconnected for about a year (as of March 12, 2020), an initial application was made by the investigative unit to a designated security department, and following the request, the data was received (P/451).
Abu Rajab Aziz, who was summoned to testify by the defense, was the owner of the Chevrolet car in the past.
He clarified (April 6, 2025, p. 4764 onwards) that he was aware of the presence of the Ituran device in his car, but that it was supposed to operate only for the purpose of locating the vehicle at the time of theft. He believes that unrelated activity violates privacy excessively. The witness was even surprised to discover that in the public servant's certificates (P/475) commemorating the passage of the vehicle in various places, as recorded by the lens of the "Hawk's Eye" cameras (a system installed and operated by the police), his personal details are indicated, and above the photographs included in the above documents, it is noted that the certificate was given for the purpose of submitting it as evidence to the court in the matter between "The State of Israel v. Abu Rajab Aziz [...] ".
After he finished his testimony, the witness submitted a request to receive all the relevant material in order to "clear his name and bring about principled legal determinations that will prevent the recurrence of such cases." We clarified that there is no legal basis for his request, since he is not a party to the proceeding, and to the extent that he wants the application to be discussed, this will be done after the end of all the proceedings.