The victim - an examination of the status of the victim and his actions prior to the injury. In other words: whether the victim was a public figure or an event in which the public had an interest; whether the victim created the impression that he was giving up his privacy; whether the victim tried to protect his privacy in a manner and to the extent that a reasonable person would have taken; the pain and suffering that the victim suffered.
The harm - the type of information exposed. The more intimate the information exposed, the greater the rate of compensation; the scope of the injury.
The offender - whether the offender acted out of altruistic motives or perhaps out of personal interest and for the purpose of making a profit; whether the injury was done maliciously or negligently.
(Helm, pp. 261,264-266)
- In our case, this is an unusual set of invasion of privacy that is at the core of Naveh's right to privacy and public life. This infringement was carried out despite the fact that access to Naveh's personal information was password protected, so that expertise was needed in order to penetrate the information. This is an action that constitutes an alleged offense according to The Wiretapping Law and the Computers Law. The improper penetration of the information and its production was done on her own initiative, with the mediation and ratification of Shteif. As part of this process, when Shteif met with Yuli for a lengthy meeting at his home and the products were projected on a television screen, she realized how intimate the information was to be revealed. Despite this, Shteif instructed Yuli to copy the materials to her on a portable device (USB drive). After copying the information to a mobile device, she printed the materials and sorted them according to their contents, for black, white binder and nylon binder. At that time, Shteif contacted the other parties on Army Radio in order to make it public. of the information As part of the program "What's Burning". If so, the violation of privacy It became more and more intense, and not for the sake of Some altruistic goal (such as: protecting Hani), but for the purpose of journalistic investigation as part of Steif's work On Duty Criminal correspondent for Army Radio.
- We have seen that the severe violation of Naveh's privacy extended over a number of tortious incidents, the main of which is a serious violation of Naveh's privacy:
- The first incident - deliberate penetration of several of Naveh's mobile phones, while overcoming a technological blockade intended to protect the privacy of the information stored in them. This wrongful act was carried out at the initiative of Steif, under her direction, while from time to time she coaxed Yuli to complete his mission: obtaining information for the purpose of investigating Naveh's case.
- The second event - the meeting between Yuli and Shteif after Yuli transferred the information to the computer and arranged it in folders, dividing it into private and public parts. In the meeting that lasted about two hours, Shteif (together with Yuli) reviewed Naveh's personal information by projecting it on a television screen in Yuli's home.
- The third incident was the copying of Naveh's personal materials and transferring them to a mobile device (USB drive). This indicates that Steif's goal was not to help Chani, but to obtain information for the journalist's investigation. Afterwards, Steif printed the materials and sorted them according to topics: in a black binder, in a white binder, and in a nylon bin.
- Fourth event - A pre-evaluation meeting held on December 24,2018 at the offices of Army Radio, in the presence of Adv. Danino, during which the materials were presented in general in order to examine whether they could be published on the air as part of the program "What's Burning".
- Fifth event - processing the information and preparing it for broadcast at Barkai's home on December 27,2018, with the participation of the defendants (with the exception of Elkabetz). As part of the meeting, a thorough examination was conducted of the documents that Shteif brought with her in the same binders. The participants analyzed and evaluated the information presented to them and prepared for the news broadcast on Naveh's case.
- Sixth Event - The special broadcast that was broadcast in the morning hours on January 16,2019, when the source of the information was journalistic activity with a criminal nature. The broadcast was made possible after the investigation became public and with Naveh's arrest. Although the components of Naveh's personal information were not described in the framework of the special broadcast and an effort was made by the defendants not to deviate from what was permitted in publication, the publication was not sterile. In the framework of the broadcast, various allusions were presented to the existence of an intimate relationship between Naveh and female lawyers for the purpose of promotion.
- The joint study and the transformation of Naveh's hidden affairs into an internal discussion severely undermined autonomy His, and his right to choose with whom to share the secret of his conversation. This is highly personal information, even though it has significant implications on the public level. The process of violating privacy was not a one-time event. These were a number of incidents, which included joint examination between several parties, with the direct wrongdoer (Steif) aware of the improper manner in which the information was obtained.
I would like to reiterate that most of the wrongful behavior is in the process of breaking into password-protected phones and improperly mining information from them - a serious violation of his privacy, which is based on activity with a criminal aspect - the extraction of information from mobile phones that are protected by a password. This is the main component that will define and determine the scope of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to Naveh. This move is consistent with Steif's parallel liability by virtue of the tort of breach of statutory duty, the essence of which relates to the hacking and use of mobile phones which is done as a result of the wiretapping.
- I was under the impression that Naveh was substantially and irreparably harmed by the severe violation of his privacy (compare Civil Case (Jerusalem District) 3213/09 Anonymous vs. Anonymous (Nevo, October 11,2011), where ILS 200,000 was awarded due to a significant and severe violation of privacy that does not have a criminal nature). Naveh's conduct deserves condemnation and criticism, and it is possible that it would have been clarified on its merits in a criminal proceeding, had it not been for the improper manner in which the information was produced. However, this does not justify the severe violation of his privacy and does not cancel out the non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result.
I took into account all of the considerations that I discussed above, including the fact that Naveh is a public figure alongside the complexity of the violation of privacy, starting with the burglary incident that took place in the criminal field, continuing with the search of personal materials, copying, printing and sorting them, and then a meticulous analysis of the personal-intimate information by the current affairs team of the program "What's Burning" on Army Radio. Considering the different nature of each link in the chain of wrongful events, I reduced the amount of the compensation component for the pre-evaluation meeting held at the offices of Army Radio (for the purpose of legal review), and I also reduced the amount of the compensation component for the publication of the special broadcast, recognizing that the core of the violation of privacy is not the publication of the investigation and the exploits of the interrogee who is a public figure, but rather the hacking of the phones and the snooping of personal content.. In view of all of this, I determine that the non-pecuniary damage caused to Naveh in connection with the above series of events amounts to ILS 450,000 on the date of the judgment.