Already at this initial stage of the hearing, a study of the nature of the orders that were requested and received is sufficient in order to understand the abysmal gap between them and the issues discussed in the Urich case, where the specific issue of seizure and copying of security cameras was not discussed at all, but rather a much broader and significant matter - a search of computers and smartphones, which by its very nature entails a severe and extensive violation of the rights of the owners of the phones and of third parties. At the very beginning of the hearing, the Honorable President (as she was then described) Hayut, who emphasized in paragraph 29 of her opinion the severe and unique violation of privacy involved in searches of smartphones and computer materials stored therein (my emphases - H.T.):
"The proceedings before us deal with a specific area of the investigative authority's activity: searching computers and smartphones - and it seems that there is no need to elaborate on the significant violation of the privacy of computer owners (as defined broadly above) and of third parties, which may be caused as a result of a search of these devices. The computer, and in particular the smartphone, is in fact a kind of concentrated "repository" of information in text, pictures, recordings and videos, from which it is possible to learn about a person's thoughts, feelings and experiences, as well as about his - sometimes the most intimate - engagements with others (Criminal Appeal 8627/14 Dvir v. State of Israel, para. 7 (July 14, 2015)).
The unique characteristics of these devices are capable of influencing the proper interpretation of section 23A of the Ordinance. Infiltrating a computer or smartphone can reveal a huge amount of details from a person's life story; This fact, together with the technological capabilities by which it is possible to assemble a complete profile of a person using the information contained in these devices, leads to the conclusion that the potential for invasion of privacy due to a computer search is, in many cases, immeasurably higher than the "traditional" search of a person's yard or tools, and it also concerns many third parties whose lives have been connected in one way or another - even for a moment - with the holder of the computer or smartphone (Fisher, In paragraph 10; Criminal Appeals Authority 8873/07 Heinz Israel in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, para. 17 (January 2, 2011) (hereinafter: the Heinz case); Haim Wismonsky, Criminal Investigation in Cyberspace 257 (2015) (hereinafter: Wismonsky))."