On behalf of the defendants: Ms. Hadas Steif; K.H. (a friend of an "intern" who was associated with Naveh); Ms. Hani Naveh (former wife of Adv. Naveh); Mr. Julius (Yuli) Rosenberg; Mr. Yitzhak Tunik (journalist, editor and former commander of Army Radio, an opinion by Steif); Mr. Razi Barkai; Mrs. Ilil Shahar Lis; Elishar Saar, CPA (who prepared an economic opinion for the state); Mr. Shimon Elkabetz; Ms. Nurit Canetti; 77"D. Ravit Danino (Head of the Legislation Branch of the Military Advocate General's Corps at the relevant time); 77"Dr. Maya Blumenfeld (Legal Advisor to Gali Tza"30 at the relevant time); D"Dr. Tehila Schwartz Altshuler (policy expert on law and communications and new technologies, edited an opinion on behalf of the state).
Discussion and Decision
- The dispute between the parties relates to a number of key questions:
What was the background and what were the reasons for handing over the mobile phones for Steif's use, if at all? Who do the phones and the content on them belong to? Who hacked into the phones and who extracted the information from them? At what point did Steif share with the other defendants the content of the information extracted from the telephones? Did Steif share with the other defendants the manner in which the information was produced? What information was presented to the other defendants from the telephones? Did the defendants distribute information? From the devices for public information? Whether the information produced from the cell phones and the manner in which the information was produced support the defense arguments raised by the defendants, and especially with Article 18 To the Privacy Protection Law?
- Before I proceed to decide on the various issues, a few comments:
First, since the disputes in the lawsuit raise questions of credibility, the format of the hearing of the witnesses did not include the submission of affidavits. All of the interrogations were heard orally (with the exception of expert opinions). Second, during the hearing of the evidence and testimonies in this case, various matters arose relating to the complex divorce proceedings that took place between Naveh and Hani. The content of some of the information produced from the telephones also related to the very personal matters of Naveh and of third parties that are not part of the proceeding. For considerations of privacy and in recognition that these are not matters necessary for the resolution of the dispute before me, I will not address their content in the framework of this judgment, unless they relate directly and relevantly to the questions that require a decision in the case at hand.