Court Orders Galatz and Reporter to Pay NIS 450,000 for Privacy Breach

A district court judge has ruled against Galatz (Army Radio) and its crime reporter Hadas Steif, ordering them to pay NIS 450,000 in damages for severe privacy violations in the case involving former Israel Bar Association chairman Efi Naveh's phone data. The lawsuit stemmed from the extraction of information from Naveh's former mobile phones, which were left at the shared residence of his ex-wife. This information eventually reached Steif and was subsequently transferred to the police, leading to the "sex for appointment" investigation. This investigation examined suspicions that Naveh used his public position to advance women with whom he had relationships, notably the candidacy of former judge Eti Kraif. In March 2021, the Deputy State Attorney decided not to indict Naveh and Kraif, citing evidentiary difficulties and concerns about the legality of evidence acquisition and Naveh's privacy.

Naveh had sought over NIS 7 million in his civil suit, alleging illegal access to his devices, review of personal content including privileged lawyer-client communications, and damage to his reputation and livelihood. While the court found that Steif did not personally hack the phones, Judge Oren Schwartz determined she was instrumental in obtaining the data by connecting Naveh's ex-wife, who possessed the devices, with the individual who breached them. The court also found Steif confirmed the extraction of data from password-protected devices.

However, similar claims against media personalities Razi Barkai, Nurit Kanti, and Ilail Shahar, who participated in a special Galatz broadcast about Naveh, were dismissed. Proceedings against Shimon Al-Kabetz were previously halted by agreement. The court granted these individuals protection, stating they acted in good faith during their journalistic work and that the broadcasted information was factual and of public importance.

In contrast, Steif was not afforded the protections of the privacy law. The court deemed her actions in obtaining the phone data illegal and unethical, stating a journalist cannot assist in a criminal act to obtain information and then claim legal protection. Judge Schwartz criticized Steif's conduct, writing that even if she didn't actively hack the phones, her actions amounted to "turning a blind eye" to a criminal offense, undermining her claim of good faith. The court concluded that Steif severely violated Naveh's privacy by copying, using, and disseminating private electronic messages and personal content obtained illegally.

The court determined that the primary harm to Naveh resulted from the phone breach and data extraction, not the Galatz broadcast itself, which was deemed newsworthy and focused on the police investigation. Consequently, Steif was ordered to pay Naveh NIS 450,000 for the privacy infringement. Galatz was held vicariously liable for Steif's actions, as they occurred within her role as a crime reporter, even if improperly executed. The judge noted that holding media organizations responsible for investigative journalists' actions could support strong investigative journalism.

Additionally, Steif was ordered to pay Naveh an extra NIS 25,000 for a Facebook post in which she called him a "garbage worm."