The public arena is first and foremost a media arena, in which the main players are politicians and media people. Political actors are opposition activists - who at the present time see their main job as an effort to disrupt 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 it is to present presently what seems to them to be important facts; And commentators, whose job it is to express an opinion on everything that moves.
I, like almost every reader of this column, am not a player in this arena.
I am not a political activist and I am not a media person.
What am I supposed to say to myself, or to others, in the face of the turmoil caused by politicians and the media?
I look at her with skeptical eyes.
I have no justification for trusting the articles with my eyes closed.
I have seen, and I continue to see, enough articles that are wrong in the simplest case and malicious in the more complex case.
Nor do I have any justification for relying with my eyes closed on this or that interpretation.
I have seen, and I continue to see, words of interpretation that do not stand on the proper professional basis in the simple case, and that have nothing more than a transparent attempt to defend a political position in the more complex case.
In addition, I have no justification for accepting the conduct of any politician as a mere expression of values and norms, which does not contain a dose of protection of party or personal interests.
Hence, I watch without excessive excitement the current turmoil over wiretapping.
Good skepticism leads to the proper composure.
I do not know what the facts are, but on the basis of my preoccupation with ethics and morality issues, I can give my mind to the question of what should be the principles in the field of wiretapping of the police for the future to come.
First, it is appropriate to engage without interruption in the updated guidance of any wiretapping activity within the framework of the law and within the framework of the procedures and ethics of the Israel Police.
There is a constant gap between the technological capability of bodies or citizens and between the legal guidance, which is supposed to define the difference between what is allowed and what is forbidden, and between the ethical guidance, which is supposed to characterize the difference between right and wrong.
I remember sitting once, years ago, in an academic debate on a bill on computer use.
Since I am not a jurist, I was not allowed, as was the custom in those days, to see the bill ahead of time.
During the discussion it became clear that the definition of "computer" for the purpose of the bill was so detached from the professional knowledge that even my analog wristwatch was a computer.
The Ministry of Justice and the Knesset committees must constantly promote legislation that will impose justified legal restrictions on the state's use - and sometimes also on business or personal use - of new technologies.
This legislative activity must be carried out as a matter of routine and not just in a time of crisis.
Likewise, any body that makes constant use of new technology, hardware or software, must develop the ethics of using those means.
I have seen efforts to develop such ethics in certain places in the IDF; they must be observed everywhere.
Second, the use of new professional means must be conducted in a manner that strengthens the protection of citizens from crime or other harassment that endangers their lives, health or well-being.
Often, a discussion of the means available to the police is conducted as an attempt to curb the power available to it, so that the power does not infringe on civil rights.
Indeed, the use of force by the police should not infringe on the rights of civilians beyond what is permitted by law, but the role of the power given to the police must not be forgotten: protecting civilians from criminal harassment.
This is also her duty - legal, moral and ethical.
It is possible that the duty to protect civilians from criminal harassment on the one hand, and the duty not to infringe on civil rights during the use of force on the other hand, will pull the rope in opposite directions.
Proper design of the new legislation and of the evolving ethics will not stabilize on one side of the tug of war.
Such a design would not allow the unrestricted use of force on the one hand, nor would it leave civilians in the hands of criminals through the sterilization of force on the other.
The key is proportionality.
In any situation of tension between the protection of civilians and the violation of civil rights, a fair balance is required, according to the severity of the danger of the crime and the severity of the violation of rights.
Third, none of the components of state mechanisms are perfect.
The new technological means are not perfect, and we will not be surprised if they are found to be faulty.
The operators of the new means are imperfect, and will not be surprised if problems are discovered in their behavior.
And to say the least: the media is not perfect either, nor is the political activity perfect, and so is the social control of the media and politics.
Typically, when a public, media, or political debate focuses on a malfunction, problem, or other phenomenon of distance from perfection, speakers focus on a sharp critique of the behavior of others, rather than resorting to a thorough and fair observation of their own behavior.
No mechanism in which the dominant culture insists on abdicating responsibility for its own conduct is unworthy of human trust.
A reformed state is a state whose entire mechanisms, state and social, are constantly engaged in a continual improvement of themselves.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us