The public arena is first and foremost a media arena, where the main characters are politicians and media professionals. Political actors are opposition activists, who at present focus their efforts on disrupting the government; and coalition activists, who are trying to protect the government and maintain the activities of the Knesset committees. Media actors are reporters, whose job is to accurately present what they believe to be important facts; and commentators, whose job is to express an opinion about everything under the sun.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
I, like almost every other reader, am not a character in this arena. I am neither a political activist nor a media professional. So what am I supposed to tell myself, or those around me, in the face of the commotion prompted by politicians and the media? I look at it with skepticism, as I have no cause to trust news items blindly. I have seen and continue to see many items that at best fail to get it right, and at worst are malicious.
Moreover, I see no justification to accept the conduct of any politician as a pure expression of values and norms, as it is rarely devoid of an attempt to defend personal or party interests. Therefore, I can observe the current brouhaha over the Israel Police's alleged use of spyware unfazed. A good dose of skepticism allows one to maintain their composure.
I do not know the full facts of the case, but based on my expertise on issues of ethics and morality, I can give my opinion on the question of what principles should guide the future use of police wiretapping.
First, it is important to constantly engage in updating the legislation on the use of wiretaps, as well as its use within the procedural and ethical framework of police work.
There is a constant gap between the technological capability of individuals or organizations and available legal guidance, which seeks to define the difference between what is and is not allowed, and between the ethical guidance, which is supposed to characterize the difference between right and wrong.
Years ago, I attended an academic symposium on legislation pertaining to the use of computers. As I am not a jurist, I had no right to see the bill ahead of time, and during the debate, it turned out that the definition of "computers" – as defined in the bill – was so far removed from the professional knowledge that by its standards, even my analog wristwatch was considered a computer.
The Justice Ministry and Knesset committees must constantly promote legislation that imposes warranted legal limitations on state – and at times, business or private – use of new technology. Such legislative activity must be carried out as a matter of routine and not just in a time of crisis. Likewise, any organization that makes constant use of new technology, be it hardware or software, must develop the ethics of using such means. I have seen efforts to that effect in certain places in the IDF but it must be pursued everywhere.
Second, the use of advanced professional means must be conducted in a manner that bolsters the protection afforded to civilians from crime or other harassment that endangers their lives, health, or welfare.
Often, a discussion about the means available to the police is conducted as an attempt to curb their powers, to ensure that said powers do not infringe on civil rights. While it is necessary to ensure the police do not abuse their power, one cannot lose sight of the role the police have been tasked with, i.e. – to protect civilians from criminals. That, too, is their legal, moral and ethical duty.
The obligation to protect civilians from criminals and the duty to protect civil rights may contradict at times, but the proper shaping of legislation and ethics can reconcile most of these differences. This will not allow excessive use of any power on the one hand, while on the other hand, it will not render such powers hollow, thus abandoning civilians to the mercy of criminals.
The key is proportionality. In any situation of friction between protecting civilians and violating civil rights, a fair balance must be struck according to the severity of the criminal threat versus the gravity of the infringement on rights.
Third, the components that make up state mechanisms are not perfect and neither are the new technological means, so we cannot be surprised if they are found to be faulty. Those who operate these new means are imperfect, so we cannot be surprised if we find fault in their behavior. The media is not perfect either, to say the least, nor are political actors or the social oversight of the media and politics.
Typically, when a public, media, or political debate focuses on failure, problem, or other phenomenon dealing with imperfection, critics focus on the behavior of others rather than resorting to a thorough and fair reflection of their own conduct. No mechanism in the organizational culture of which condones shirking personal responsibility is worthy of the public's trust. A reformed state is a state whose governmental and social mechanisms as a whole, constantly engage in self-improvement.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
