And in paragraph 27:
"At the stage of conducting the investigation, there is an inherent tension between the interest in ensuring a quick and effective investigation in order to fight crime and protect public safety, and in order to reach the truth, and the need to ensure the rights of interrogees, suspects and third parties. This stage, by its very nature, involves a certain violation of the rights of interrogees and of other parties related to the interrogation, including the right to privacy, the right to liberty and the right to property (Criminal Appeal 4855/02 State of Israel v. Borowitz, IsrSC 59(6) 776, 833 (2005) (hereinafter: the Borowitz case); High Court of Justice 3809/08 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Israel Police, IsrSC 65(2) 694, 717 (2012) (hereinafter: the Media Data Matter); Amit, at pp. 309-310), but this does not mean that the goal authorizes all the means. The scope of operation of the investigative authorities is always subject to limitations and restrictions designed to ensure a fair trial and the proportionality of the violation of the rights of interrogees (including suspects and witnesses) as well as third parties (see in this context also: section 7(c) of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty; Criminal Appeal Authority 10141/09 Ben Haim v. State of Israel, IsrSC 65(3) 305, 334 (2012))".
It was found that the rationale rooted in the autonomy of the individual and his right to waive his privacy by way of giving consent to search his body, utensils or home, is not fully compatible with the intrusion of computers, such as security cameras, since consent to "penetrate" such cameras does not only constitute an infringement of the privacy of the camera owner alone, but also of third parties in the form of a broad public being photographed. Therefore, when it comes to penetration of computer materials, as opposed to the physical perception of the computer (including a camera or DVR), the informed consent of the computer owner is not sufficient to carry out such a search, and the investigating unit must obtain a search warrant from the court.
- Recently, however, after the writing of this judgment was in fact completed and before it was read, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that directly discusses the question Is the police permitted to search the interrogee's computer material - including their mobile phones - without a judicial warrant, based on the interrogee's consent? (High Court of Justice 8298/22 Public Defender's Office v. Attorney General et al. (31.8.2025)). The Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have the authority to conduct consensual searches of computer material, without a judicial order, and that the application of the The Ben Haim ruling on a search of computer material. It was clarified that With regard to a search of computer materials, the legislature has expressly deposited the discretion as to the existence of a cause of action In the exclusive hands of the court. Therefore, The police lack the authority to search computer material without a judicial order, and even the consent of the person who is the subject of the search does not constitute such authority, contrary to the explicit language of the Section 23A(b) To the PDP. Therefore, the Supreme Court left the discussion of the question of the violation of the privacy of third parties as a result of conducting such a search for a timely basis.
However, it seems to me that although security cameras and the content produced from them, constitute "computer material" according to The Computers Law, 5755-1995, given the broad interpretation in case law and the legal literature, and in order to produce such content, "penetration into computer material" is required, there is a difference in the intensity of the violation of the right to privacy, liberty, privacy of the individual, and more - when penetrating computer content, and in particular a smartphone, as opposed to penetration of security cameras located in the public space, certainly those that are visible to all (as opposed to a security camera installed inside a person's home).