Civil Case (Jerusalem) 56708-12-22 Erez Aumann v. Octopus – Public Information for All (NPO) - part 21

Unlike the other proceedings that are the subject of the claim before me, the plaintiff is not a party toT.A.  3932-06-22, which took place between another person and the defendant.  Here, the defendant published from the file the plaintiff's affidavit, which she received as a litigant, and not because it was exposed to the public as part of the data open on the Net HaMishpat website.  In any event, the title of the affidavit mentions the plaintiff's ID number and his signature appears at the end (Appendix 22 to the statement of claim).

76. According to the defendant, which was also confirmed by the plaintiff in the framework of the cross-examination, at the time the affidavit was submitted he was already represented by his current attorney, who was also the plaintiff's attorney in the aforementioned case. Despite the aforesaid, the plaintiff did not seek to protect these details, and did not seek to prohibit the publication of the affidavit (see p.  31 of the transcript, paras.  1-25).

The Violation of the Plaintiff's Privacy - Summary

77. As stated, even though the claim was filed in respect of a large number of proceedings, it was not proven that the defendants published documents or decisions from the National Insurance Institute 11270/09 and the National Insurance Institute 10243/10. These proceedings numbers do not appear in the list of proceedings in a printout from the "Trial Worm" under the plaintiff's name.  As if that were not enough, the plaintiff confirmed in the cross-examination that some of the files he is suing for were not published by the defendants (page 21 of the transcript, line 32).
78. As detailed in detail above, the defendant denied publishing information from these files, while the plaintiff did not attach screenshots from which it is possible to learn about the publication of any information about him from these proceedings. In these circumstances, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving a violation of privacy with respect to the two proceedings mentioned above.  Therefore, I dismiss the claim regarding the publication of information from these proceedings.
79. The "Judgment Worm" website published two conciliation arrangements signed by the plaintiff, one from M. 9713-10-16 and the other from labor dispute 6613-10-18.  The second settlement also states the plaintiff's ID number.
80. It has already been determined that the publication of a person's ID number is an infringement of his privacy (see Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 2820/13 Raz Rosenberg v. Enforcement and Collection Authority, 67(1) 1 (2014), Civil Appeal 439/88 Registrar of Databases v.  Moshe Ventura, 88(3) 808 (1994), as well as the definition of the term "personal information" in paragraph 3 to the Protection of Privacy Law).  However, "it has already been ruled that the right to privacy relates, first and foremost, to information or data that clearly relates to the individual, such as: his medical condition, income level, age, weight, sexual preferences, etc." (Administrative Petition (Central Administrative) 41955-01-24 Lavi Civil Rights Proper Administration and Encouragement of Settlement v.  Israel Prison Service (February 2, 2025)).  The ID number is not an intimate and private thing, which as a rule a person wishes to keep to himself, such as his medical condition.  Therefore, any person "who has an alleged interest in the matter" may contact the Population and Immigration Authority and receive the ID number of any other person (see Procedure 2.14.0001 on the Population and Immigration Authority's website).
81. As for the sample signature, even if its publication can be viewed as personal information, the violation of privacy involved in the publication is very minor, and as evidenced by the scanned signature of every judge on every decision he made, it is distributed to everyone. If that were not enough, in the case before me, it is evident that the plaintiff's signature as published in the publications that are the subject of the proceeding before me, changes frequently (p.  32 of the transcript, paras.  26-29).  In these circumstances, the violation of privacy in its publication is even smaller.
82. The plaintiff testified that he feared that the publication put him at risk of identity theft. However, in view of the ease with which it is possible to obtain ID numbers and signature samples, as a rule, these details are not sufficient to identify yourself, and it is required to present an ID card that includes a photo, password, or something else.
83. In this situation, the publication of the conciliation arrangements on which the plaintiff's signature is affixed, and on one of which his ID number is written in handwriting, is a minor violation of the plaintiff's privacy.
84. It should be emphasized that in the case before me, there is no dispute that the publication was made before the gag orders were issued, and that immediately after the gag orders were issued and brought to the defendant's attention, the publications were removed.
85. Section 5(e) of the Labor Court (Conciliation) Regulations, 5753-1993, establishes the duty of confidentiality of the conciliator, "The conciliator shall not disclose any information given to him during the conciliation to a person who is not a party to the conciliation."
86. In any event, even if there were a similar clause in the Labor Court Regulations, the duty of confidentiality (and the inadmissibility of the documents in the legal proceeding) does not apply to the mediation arrangement, but only to other information provided during the mediation, as determined in Tax Appeal 8769/08 Anonymous v. Anonymous (December 31, 2008):

"Any document created in the mediation room - with the exception of a 'mediation arrangement' as defined in the law and regulations - cannot come out under the wings of inadmissibility."