An examination of the transcription of the special transmitter shows that it is an "anemic" broadcast, in relation to the information to which the defendants were exposed at the time. My conclusion is that the main tortious activity is not the news publication of the "special broadcaster", but rather the hacking of the telephones, the extraction of the information from them, its analysis and the acquisition and discourse conducted by the defendants while they were examining in depth Naveh's personal information. Thus, the core of the violation of privacy is the act of snooping and dealing with the personal content and the material obtained in the hacking of the phones, and not in the results that derive from the mere exposure of Naveh's wrongful acts to the public in the framework of the special broadcast.
- The hacking of the phones, the production of the personal information that was stored in them, the perusal of the information, and the subsequent transmission are the basis of the lawsuit. According to Naveh, these acts amount to an invasion of privacy, negligence accordingly Sections 35-36 to the Torts Ordinance and the tort of breach of statutory duties as aforesaid In section 63 to the Torts Ordinance.
I will discuss the legal grounds in their proper order below.
Discussion and Decision on the Legal Questions Arising from the Factual Tract
Grounds for Invasion of Privacy
- Naveh claimed that the series of events, which included the taking of his mobile devices, hacking them, extracting information from them, processing and preparing it for broadcast, along with the exposure of the personal content, leaking and publishing it in public, caused an extreme and ongoing violation of his privacy. This serious violation intensifies, according to Naveh, taking into account that the acts were all committed without his knowledge or consent, and while bypassing personal passwords and security mechanisms that are intended to actively protect his privacy and privacy.
The right to privacy is one of the most important human rights in Israel (Criminal Appeal 1302/92 State of Israel v. Nahmias, IsrSC 49(3) 309,354 (1995)). This right is one of the derivatives of the right to dignity Recognized in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. The Supreme Court held as follows regarding the importance of the status of the right to privacy: