The applicant did not present evidence that contradicts this testimony.
- The Applicant claims that "there is no significance to the question of whether or not Facebook knows 'exactly' the first and last name of the person it is Because, even without knowing his "precise" identity, she knows a lot of information about him that she is forbidden to collect..." (Paragraph 22 of the Applicant's summaries). "...The fact that she does not 'succeed' in identifying his name because he is not a member of Facebook is of no significance to her, the aforesaid information about a 'personality' that she follows is sufficient to exploit this for commercial purposes in an improper manner, and thus severely violate the privacy of the person being tracked by her" (paragraph 23 of the Applicant's summaries). and that "the question of whether Facebook knows the identity of the user is meaningless... In any case, it can contact that user directly when he browses third-party websites, since it provides him with its own identification, and through that identification it follows him, continues to collect details about him and contacts him directly" (paragraph 24 of the Applicant's summaries).
- But is the question of whether the information is identifiable really meaningless?
As has already been established in case law, there can be no violation of privacy where information cannot be attributed to a specific person. See, for example, Civil Appeal Authority 7828/17 Histadrut Medicinit Hadassah v. Anonymous (published in the databases, [Nevo], January 9, 2018), para. 14. "In such a case, where the public exposed to the medical information cannot connect the information presented to a specific person, that person's privacy is not violated, since without the possibility of pointing to the patient's identity, no one intrudes into his personal space. The medical information remains detached from the context and is not concrete, and therefore its presentation does not violate the patient's medical confidentiality or the patient's right to privacy." See also Civil Appeal 1697/11 A. Gottesman Architecture inTax Appeal v. Arie Vardi, at paragraphs 18-23 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge (Ret.) A. Fogelman [Nevo] (hereinafter: the Gottesman case), and Class Action (Central District) 44501-10-17 Alon Amar v. Pelephone Communications in Tax Appeal (published in the databases, [Nevo], October 30, 2024), 117-118 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice M. Nadav.
- The witness on behalf of the respondent testified as follows (at p. 188 of the transcript):
"there’s no data about you as an individual, our system only sees or receives that there was a website page that had the Pixel installed, and that data does not match an account. That’s all we know."