The Wiretapping Law which was intended, among other things, Protecting the privacy of the discourse and the private space of the person and regulate the possibility of harming these values for certain purposes by the state (Criminal Appeal 1497/92 State of Israel v. TzubariIsrSC 47(4) 177,192 (1993)).
- From the testimonies and evidence that I reviewed in the first part of the judgment, it appears that the improper use of Naveh's phones caused the kind of damage intended by those statutes, i.e., his taking control of the personal content that was stored on his mobile phones and harming his private discourse.
Instruction Section 7 The Computers Law shows that it created independent causes of action. Thus, Section 7 The Computer Law requires the "deletion, alteration or disruption of the computer materials" as a condition for the existence of a tort by virtue of that law (Civil Case (Central District) 17024-09-09 Gal-Al Beverage Products Ltd. v. Tana Industries (1991) Ltd. (Nevo, October 24,2010)). According to the evidence brought before me, in July, at the request of Shteif, he copied the files from the mobile phones to an external device, thus causing a permanent change in the computer material In section 7(b) to the Computers Law. In all of these, a tort must be constituted according to The Torts Ordinance, including for breach of statutory duty by virtue of Article 63 to the Torts Ordinance.
On the other hand, The Wiretapping Law deals mainly with the definition of the criminal offense. However, Section 2(2) The Protection of Privacy Law states that eavesdropping that is prohibited by law is an infringement of privacy. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the commission of an act that amounts to an offense under The Wiretapping Law Will be included in the provisions The Protection of Privacy Law and through it it can serve as a basis for the tort of breach of statutory duty.
Summary, Instructions The Computers Law allow liability for the tort of breach of statutory duty. Therefore, subject to the existence of the elements of causal connection and damage, I see no impediment to obligating Steif to liability even by virtue of the tort of breach of statutory duty.