The Methods

The police and the Shin Bet tend to quickly incorporate new technologies within their systems without public discussion or legislation governing their use, taking advantage of the gap between existing legislation and the rapid pace of technological developments. This lack of regulation and transparency is often justified on the grounds of "effectiveness;" that without the ability to use new technology, law enforcement could not conduct its work effectively. Moreover, law enforcement tends to build huge systems and databases, and only agrees to regulate them through legislation after they have been created and implemented—and only if they are forced to do so. One example is the "Hawk Eye" system, which has been used for years without any set legal regulation.

Rather than regulating new technology through the legislative process, law enforcement authorities tend to rely on existing laws, and interpret them broadly in order to "cover" the new technologies. The existing laws, some of which were enacted decades ago, regulate the use of less complex technologies, in which the nature and types of privacy violations are very different. These laws are not adapted to technological developments and new tools, which pose much more serious threats to the right to privacy. For example, the police and the Shin Bet claim that the Wiretapping Law can be relied upon to regulate the use of spyware on mobile phones and computers. However, the law does not explicitly refer to this type of technology (which did not exist at the time of its enactment), and the personal information that can be accessed through spyware is much more extensive and sensitive than what can be accessed through wiretapping. Beyond the violation of privacy, broadly interpreting existing laws expands the powers of the police and the Shin Bet beyond the original intention of the legislation, and violates the principle of legality.

In order to circumvent the need for public debate and the disclosure of the use of these technologies, the police sometimes use internal processes rather than the legislature to regulate the use of new technologies, as was done with the "Hawk Eye" system. These internal procedures are not visible to the public, and are not subject to parliamentary or judicial review.

In many cases, law enforcement agencies refuse to provide information about the systems they use, even in response to requests from human rights organizations and Knesset committees. For example, the police and the military rejected requests from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and refused to provide information about their use of facial recognition technology in Israel and the occupied territories. In another case, the police simply did not respond to a request from a Knesset member who asked for information about an artificial intelligence system used by the police at the airport. Additionally, even in cases where there is some kind of parliamentary oversight, the oversight happens through secret discussions in Knesset committees, without the participation of the public or civil society. There have even been cases when the police have concealed their use of advanced surveillance technologies.