Mohamed AlgarjThis investigation questions why a state-owned fuel distributor published beneficiaries' names alongside national identification numbers for cooking-gas allocations. It offers a useful public-service case study in data minimization: accountability can be preserved without exposing identifiers that enable fraud or profiling.
One national identification number per listed beneficiary — sensitive field reportedly disclosed
The analysis
This investigation questions why a state-owned fuel distributor published beneficiaries' names alongside national identification numbers for cooking-gas allocations. It offers a useful public-service case study in data minimization: accountability can be preserved without exposing identifiers that enable fraud or profiling.
What the public record establishes
The linked records provide the institutional and numerical frame for this investigation. They support a documented reading, but do not automatically prove every causal claim or allegation. Do not reproduce the beneficiary list, names, national numbers, screenshots, or searchable fragments. Frame the legal conclusion as a question pending review of the applicable Libyan privacy, cybercrime, and public-record rules. Give Brega a right of reply and ask what consent, retention, redaction, and takedown safeguards were used.
What remains unanswered
The public-interest test is what the responsible institutions publish next: the underlying decision, transaction-level data, implementation record and a response that can be checked against the evidence in this social-justice file.
Editorial method: This investigation rebuilds the original calculation from the linked public records, preserves the source period and transaction stage, and separates documented figures from estimates, interpretation and allegations.
Mohamed Algarj