It's not just our note that is private
The Supreme Court ruled that information about whether a citizen has exercised their right to vote is private information and cannot be transferred to political parties without legal authorization. The article discusses the boundaries of privacy in the digital age and the question of whether parties have the right to know which of their supporters have not yet voted, distinguishing between persuasion to vote and monitoring the exercise of the right.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that information about whether a citizen has exercised their right to vote is private information and cannot be transferred to political parties without proper legal authorization. The ruling came following an attempt by parties to obtain real-time information about their supporters who had arrived at polling stations, in order to encourage those who had not yet voted. The parties argued that this was a legitimate use of information for campaign management until the last moment, and that there was no real violation of voting secrecy since they do not know who the person voted for. The Court rejected this argument and ruled that it constitutes a violation of privacy that cannot be done without legal authorization. The article, by attorney Buki Katzman, distinguishes between persuading someone to vote and knowing that a person has not yet voted – the former is legitimate, the latter is personal information. The author emphasizes that in an era where almost every action becomes data, the ballot box itself must remain a private space. He raises concerns that in the future, algorithms will be able to know the likelihood of us voting and which message will influence us. The article does not take a political stance but deals with the boundaries of power and privacy.