Journalist Hadas Steif to Pay Efi Naveh NIS 600,000 for Privacy Breach

A district court in central Israel has ordered journalist Hadas Steif to pay approximately NIS 600,000 to Efi Naveh, former head of the Israel Bar Association. The ruling comes after Naveh sued Steif and the State of Israel over the hacking of his mobile phones and the subsequent publication of their contents on Galei Tzahal (Army Radio) in January 2019.

Judge Oren Schwartz determined that Steif's actions constituted a severe violation of Naveh's privacy and an infringement of statutory duty, contravening the Computer Law and Wiretapping Law. The court sharply criticized Steif's role in obtaining the information, stating she was the "initiating and mediating factor who initiated and advanced the breach of password-protected devices." The judge added that Steif's actions had a criminal nature due to her central role.

The court emphasized that Steif did not passively receive already-extracted information but was actively involved in the process leading to the breach. She met with Chani Naveh, Efi Naveh's ex-wife, and recruited Yuli, who performed the hacking, knowing his capabilities. Steif instructed Yuli to return the devices if he couldn't find journalistically valuable material, indicating her awareness of how the information was obtained.

Judge Schwartz described the privacy violation as an "exceptional series of infringements on privacy at the core of Naveh's right to personal and public life." The breach occurred despite the information being password-protected and requiring expertise to access. The judge concluded that the "improper intrusion into the information and its extraction was done at the initiative, mediation, and approval of Steif."

The ruling detailed how, after the phones were hacked, Steif viewed the intimate contents on a TV screen and ordered the material copied to a USB drive. The information was then printed and organized into binders. Steif subsequently approached other Galei Tzahal personnel for publication, further intensifying the violation of Naveh's privacy. The court rejected Steif's defense arguments, including claims of good faith, public interest, and journalistic source protection, stating a journalist cannot be an active partner in a criminal offense that infringes on privacy.

The court also ruled that Chani Naveh was not authorized to transfer the devices to a third party and that their divorce agreement did not absolve the defendants of responsibility.