""And what if there was exculpatory evidence?": Cyber ​​expert on police wiretapping

February 4, 2022   

Attorney Rami Tamam, a former cyber investigator and senior officer at Lahav 433, spoke this morning (Friday) with Judy Nir Mozes Shalom on 103FM, shedding light on the police's use of spyware. Stressed to have one last cigarette before Shabbat? Allen Carr and a relaxed Shabbat! Parents check, children go to study • How does the new outline work? During the conversation, Attorney Tamam revealed that granting authorizations to hack phones is a controversial issue: "What's the problem? A judge doesn't know what they're being used for, and he's not interested. From his perspective, he allows privacy violations if it's consistent with the needs of the investigation. In this case, there's no control here, it's a one-time source, it's somewhere in the system, and no one really knows where it comes from." "I'm sure there are investigators who raised an eyebrow in the case and said, 'Oh, I didn't know.' Now, the fact that an investigator is in a situation where he doesn't know all the details is a problem. And what if during this wiretapping, which is wiretapping that wasn't reflected in the investigation materials, there was exculpatory evidence in favor of some defendant? And if there was exculpatory evidence, then why didn't it come to trial? Who decided? "After all, if I have wiretapping, I can say, 'Friends, I want to hear everything. Even things that might be personal privacy or confidentiality - if he spoke to a lawyer, a psychologist, or a priest. Why doesn't it come out? "There is a problem here," explained the former senior officer in Lahav Unit 433. According to him, he does not know whether a hack into a cell phone of a person in Case 4,000 actually occurred, but he said that in the past there were wiretaps during which exculpatory evidence was discovered: "Sometimes cases were closed because of this. The police came in their honesty and said: Listen, friends, I listened and it turns out not as she shouted, and that changes the full picture." The cyber investigator added and explained how investigations in which wiretaps are used are conducted: "In general, an investigator who receives a file and reads it has no idea where the intelligence material in it comes from, because a one-time source is listed. In the end, you get a piece of paper that says intelligence information on it, not a technological source. ""If you are told that you have a one-time source, you can't come to the intelligence coordinator and tell him, 'Ask the source again so that we can enrich the information,' you can't because it's a one-time source." Attorney Tamam shared the cases he has encountered these days, as a lawyer who deals with cyber investigations: "We have clients who have had their information hacked and stolen. Sometimes, even spouses who are in divorce proceedings use email and phone hacking. This issue has simply exploded, since the story with Efi Naveh. The dominant narrative is that evidence is evidence, no matter how it was obtained. If it was obtained by improper means, it should be disqualified, but that doesn't happen and that's a problem." Do you also want to join the tens of millions of people who have been freed from the prison of smoke? Click here >>>>>>