2018-05-31 For geeks only: corrupt judges and PM Netanyahu's Cyber Authority

For geeks only: corrupt judges and PM Netanyahu's Cyber Authority
Deceit in electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the courts)? Senior Israeli cyber security experts are asked to opine.
Patent evidence indicates serious deceit in judges' electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat. The matter was central to the Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal - perhaps the worst and best documented judicial corruption case in the history of the State of Israel.
The matter was also examined by international experts in a series of academic conferences on e-government, and by the professional staff of the UN Human Rights Council. The UN Human Rights High Commissioner's report on Israel summarized it: "integrity and validity of any legal and judicial record from Israel is dubious at best".
In contrast, the Israeli Supreme Court has recently refused to rule in the matter, in an appeal, originating in "fabricated" protocol, pertaining to detained blogger Lori Shem-Tov, and "fabricated" judgment records, pertaining to falsely imprisoned Roman Zadorov. On the way, the Supreme Court issued a precedential ruling that a criminal appeal was of "civil nature", and tried to extort NIS 20,000 in deposit for fees...
Now, senior Israeli cyber security experts are asked to opine. However, the best Israeli cyber security experts are directly remunerated by the "Cyber Authority" in the Prime Minister's office, which has established in recent years "Cyber-security Research Centers" in all major Israeli universities. The Cyber Authority itself was established by Eviatar Matania, PhD, a political appointee, who has been recently replaced by Yigal Unna, another political appointee...
In an extremely unusual incident in April 2017, Shin-Bet Head, Mossad Head, Deputy IDF Chief of Staff and Ministry of Defense CEO publicly denounced the establishment of the "Cyber Authority" in the Prime Minister's office. MK Nachman Shai - former IDF Spokesman and a security expert stated: "an undemocratic measure".
The obvious concerns are that such circumstances cause senior cyber-security experts, such as Prof Yitzhak Ben-Israel – Tel-Aviv University, Prof Michael Ben-Or – Hebrew University,
Prof Eli Biham – Technion, Prof Danny Dolev - Hebrew University, Prof Yuval Elovici – Ben-Gurion University, Prof Yehuda Lindell – Bar-Ilan University, Prof Benny Pinkas – Bar-Ilan University, not to perform their public ethical duties - to warn the public at large against serious deceit in government cyber systems.
Prof Asa Kasher – Tel-Aviv University and Hebrew University - who is uniquely qualified, given his background in applied mathematics, and his extensive public activity in writing scores of "Ethics Codes" for the government, was also asked to opine in this matter.
Read the complete post:http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2018/06/2018-05-31-for-geeks-only-corrupt.html 
  
    
Figure.  Senior Israeli cyber security experts,who were asked to opine regarding deceit in electronic signatures in the courts: Prof Yitzhak Ben-Israel – Tel-Aviv University, Prof Michael Ben-Or – Hebrew University, Prof Eli Biham – Technion, Prof Danny Dolev - Hebrew University, Prof Yuval Elovici – Ben-Gurion University, Prof Asa Kasher – Tel-Aviv University and Hebrew University, Prof Yehuda Lindell – Bar-Ilan University, Prof Benny Pinkas – Bar-Ilan University.
__ 


Figure. The Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal is no doubt one of the worst judicial corruption scandals in the history of the State of Israel.  The 2012 Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision in this matter makes it clear that the "fabrication" was based on perversion of electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat - case management system of the courts. Judge Varda Alshech has never been held accountable for her criminality - Deceit and Breach of Trust.
___ 


Figure.  Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Supreme Court Justice (ret) Eliezer Goldberg's 2012 Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal generated unique documentation, pertaining to the operation of Net-HaMishpat system.  Protocol, decision, or judgment record, which is not electronically signed, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) - is merely an invalid "Draft".  The Decision also documents that there is no way for the public at large and parties in court cases to distinguish between valid and effectual court records and "Drafts" (since the judges hide the "detached electronic signatures").
___ 
Figure.  Judges systematically deny public access to the electronic signature data in Net-HaMishpat.  However, in cases where such access was gained, it turned out that there were no true electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2002), in Net-HaMishpat system at all.
___  

Figure.  The UN Human Rights High Commissioner's report on Israel (2018) noted serious deterioration in integrity of law and justice agencies... "validity and integrity of any legal and judicial records of Israel should be deemed dubious at best." 

___ 


Figure. The 2016 inauguration of the Technion "Cyber Security Research Center": Prof Peretz Lavie - Technion President, Eviatar Matania, PhD - Head of the Cyber Authority in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office, and Prof Eli Biham - the Technion's "Cyber Security Research Center" Head. A series of academic papers document serious deceit in government cyber systems in Israel.  Such papers propose the thesis, that establishment of the "Cyber Security Research Centers" in all major universities in Israel by direct funding from the PM Office, in fact silences the best experts in the field, and causes them not to perform their ethical public duty - to warn the public at large against deceit by government.
___

Tel-Aviv, May 31 - request for an opinion, pertaining to integrity of Net-HaMishpat - case management system of the courts - has been forwarded today to some of the most senior experts in the field in Hebrew University, Bar-Ilan University, Tel-Aviv University and the Technion.  All of them are also active as senior officers in Cyber Security Research Centers, which have been established in recent years in major Israeli universities.  Additionally, Prof Asa Kasher was asked to opine in this matter, given his unique qualifications: His background in applied mathematics, and his extensive public activity in writing scores of "Ethics Codes" for the Israeli government.
The request notes that it has a two-fold purpose:
a) For filing a petition with the High Court of Justice against Director of the Courts, Judge Yigal Marzel and others – to explain: Why they should not order the implementation of valid electronic signatures for the judges, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), overt to parties and to the public at large, in Net-HaMishpat system?
b) For research – in various academic papers and international reports I proposed the thesis that circumstances in the State of Israel in part originate in "social disintegration", or "loss of social contract" – where the intelligentsia fails to loyally perform its duties in a civil society.
Attached to the request were examples of judicial decisions, including senseless reasoning, denying access to inspect electronic signature data, pertaining to decisions and judgments of the false life imprisonment of Roman Zadorov, the ongoing detention of blogger Lori Shem-Tov, and vindication of senior Israeli Police commander Niso Shaham of sex offenses...

Following is the request, forwarded today to the cyber security experts 

May 31, 2018

Prof Yitzhak Ben-Israel – Tel-Aviv University

Prof Michael Ben-Or – Hebrew University

Prof Eli Biham – Technion

Prof Danny Dolev - Hebrew University

Prof Yuval Elovici – Ben-Gurion University

Prof Asa Kasher – Tel-Aviv University and Hebrew University

Prof Yehuda Lindell – Bar-Ilan University

Prof Benny Pinkas – Bar-Ilan University

By email

RE: Request for opinion regarding judges’ electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat – case management system of the Israeli courts

Your response within 14 days is kindly requested. Time is of the essence.

Dear Sirs:

Please accept instant request as individuals and as a group – for providing opinions pertaining to judges’ electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat – case management system of the Israeli courts.

Your opinions are requested for a two-fold purpose:

a) For filing a petition with the High Court of Justice against Director of the Courts, Judge Yigal Marzel and others – to explain: Why they should not order the implementation of valid electronic signatures for the judges, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), overt to parties and the public, in Net-HaMishpat system?

b) For research – in various academic papers and international reports I proposed the thesis that circumstances in the State of Israel in part originate in social disintegration, or loss of social contract – where the intelligentsia fails to loyally perform its duties in a civil society.

The factual foundation:

a) Electronic signatures were a central issue in the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” scandal. Based on Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Supreme Court Justice (ret) Eliezer Goldberg Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) (Attachment A), a reasonable person would conclude:

1. Electronic signature application exists in Net-HaMishpat, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), and “detached electronic signatures” are produced for judicial records;
2. Each and every judge, who is authorized to use Net-HaMishpat, is issued an electronic signature device, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), and
3. Judges are required to sign each and every protocol, decision and judgment, using electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001); since absent a signature pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), such documents are merely invalid “drafts”, lacking finality and taking of responsibility by the judge.

b) Repeat requests to exercise inspection of judges’ electronic signature data, pertaining to protocols, decisions and judgments, show:

1. Judges systematically deny inspection of electronic signature data, pertaining to decisions and judgments (Attachment B). In contrast, Israeli law says: “Every person is permitted to inspect decisions, which are not lawfully prohibited for publication”; the term “Inspection” is defined including “receipt of computer output”, [¹] and the Supreme Court declared that the right to inspect is “a fundamental principle in any democratic regime… constitutional, supra-statutory…” [²]
2. In cases, where ways were found to inspect the purported judges’ electronic signature data, pertaining to protocols, decisions, or judgments, which were purportedly served on parties by the courts, only two types of data were discovered, both of them dubious at best in my opinion (Attachment C).

Such findings raise suspicions that in Net-HaMishpat system there is no electronic signature application for the judges, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001). Moreover – that the judges systematically try to hide such fact.

Your opinion is requested, pertaining to the purported electronic signature data, Type A and Type B, demonstrated in Attachment C (for comparison purpose, Attachment C also provides a partial example of an attorney’s electronic signature in Net-HaMishpat). The question is:

Could such data be deemed examples of judges’ electronic signatures pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), pertaining to protocols, decisions and judgments, which are electronic records in Net-HaMishpat?

Obviously, such matter has the highest public policy significance relative to the fundamental rights of all residents of the State of Israel – Liberty, property, due process, fair and public hearing, etc.

The circumstances, which are outlined here, appear incredible - 17 years after the Electronic Signature Act (2001) went into effect, 8 years after Net-HaMishpat system was implemented in the courts, and 6 years after the Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” scandal… All of that in a high-tech, “start-up nation”...

In my opinion, your standing as senior academic staff in public universities, and given that most of you are key personnel in publicly funded “Cybersecurity Research Centers”, and given Prof Asa Kasher’s position as a senior expert of government and author of dozens of Ethics Codes, you should provide your opinion in this matter.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert – NGO (RA)

CC: Wide distribution

1 Regulations of the Courts-Inspection of Court Files (2003)

2 Supreme Court 2009 Judgment in Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice et al (5917/97)

Attachment A – quotes from Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Supreme Court Justice (ret) Eliezer Goldberg Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District)

Paragraph 19

In her February 05, 2012 and February 12, 2012 responses, the Hon Judge stated that there are no two versions of the Protocol document. Version A is a “ Draft Protocol”… while Version B is a “Formal Protocol”, which was electronically signed… From the Hon Judge’s explanation it also concluded, that as far as Net-HaMishpat system is concerned… as long as a protocol is not electronically signed by the judge, it is a draft protocol… only after it is electronically signed it becomes a findal protocol. [underlines in the original – jz]

Paragraph 21

In his February 21, 2012 letter, Mr Yardeni writes: “… it is impossible to distinguish in protocol printouts between a protocol,which is signed using a graphic signature and a protocol, which is signed using an electronic signature...”

Paragraph 22

Such matter was also noted in Attorney Laser’s April 15, 2012 letter, whereby: “According to our investigation, the Protocol, subject of your inquiry, was never electronically signed...”

Paragraph 23

On March 13, 2012, I asked the Hon Judge to address that fact, that there is no version of the protocol in the system, which is electronically signed…

Paragraph 25

On February 19, 2012, I inquired with the Director of Administration of Courts, and asked to investigate, whether the finding is at all possible, that to this date there is no electronically signed protocol…

Paragraph 36

Work Instruction 114/10 states: “In the electronic court file era, judgments are signed using a secure electronic signature...” Such statement is consistent with the statements in the May 01, 2012 Attorney Barak Laser letter [Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts – jz] to the Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary: “Output of an electronically signed output is deemed a copy, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), Article 6(b).

Paragraph 37

Therefore, absent an electronically signed Protocol, “True Copy of the Original” stamp shouldn’t have been impressed…

Paragraph 38

The March 21, 2012 “Chronological Report”, which was prepared by the Internal Audit Department of the Administration of Courts, was brought for my inspection… The Report also says: “...the judge’s electronic signature constitutes the true of the protocol and its transformation from a “draft” document to a “final” document...”

Paragraph 39

I have nothing to add but fully join the conclusions of the above referenced Report. The judges should be indoctrinated, as soon as possible, regarding the significance of electronically signing protocols and decisions (see also Regulations Civil of Court Procedure (1984), Regulation 190(a), which provides that “decision shall be in writing and signed by the judges, who were seated in court”)...

Attachment B – Judges’ Decisions on to requests to inspect electronic signature data, pertaining to protocols, decisions and judgments

a) State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) – in the Nazareth District Court

 

Figures. Nazareth District Court Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham and his January 25, 2016 Decision on repeat requests to inspect lawfully made judgment records and their electronic signature data:

The Requester repeats his requests, subject of which, purportedly, is inspection of court records. However, these are not requests to inspect, but an investigation, which the Requester is conducting, pertaining to validity of Net-HaMishpat system and various claims regarding conduct of the judicial panel in this case. In such matters this court shall not engage…

b) State of Israel v Niso Shaham (31283-10-13) – in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court

 

Figure. May 09, 2018 Judge Benny Sagi “Post-it Decision” in State of Israel v Niso Shaham (31283-10-13) – in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:

There is no right to inspect the “judge’s electronic signature”.

c) State of Israel v Lori Shem-Tov (Detainee) et al (14280-04-17) in the Tel-Aviv District Court

  

Figure. September 18, 2018 Judge Abraham Heiman’s “Post-it Decision”.

To the degree that the Requester has claims regarding the authenticity of the protocols, he should address them, using the appropriate procedure, if it exists, which is not a request to inspect.

Attachment C – examples of purported electronic signature data from Net-HaMishpat

1) Type A – documents, where the purported “electronic signature application” was never executed at all

Figure. Inspection of the purported electronic signature of a “Judgment” in Net-HaMishpat system, which was purportedly served on a party:

The signature is invalid.

2) Type B - documents, where the purported “electronic signature application” was executed in Net-HaMishpat

Figure. Inspection of the purported electronic signature of a “Judgment” in Net-HaMishpat, which was purportedly served on a party:

(1) “The base certificate of the certifying authority is invalid...”;

(2) “Issued for: Israeli Courts Authority” - no name of a person and his/her authority, who is the signer and the lawful holder of such signature instrument appears among the data;

(3) “Issued by: Israeli Courts Authority” - there is no entity, which is recognized by Israeli law, named “Israeli Courts Authority”, surely there is no such certifying authority, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001);

(4) “Valid from: 01/01/2000 to 01/01/2099” - on 01/01/2000, the Israeli Electronic Signature Act was not in effect yet, and the issuance of an electronic signature instrument ot any person, in his capacity as a judge for 99 years is invalid, unreasonable conduct;

(5) No date and time of the purported signature appear at all among the data.

Such application wouldn’t be considered an electronic signature according to common definitions of electronic signatures, and surely is not an electronic signature pursuant to the Israeli Electronic Signature Act (2001).

Such false, fake electronic signature application permits the alteration and adulteration of judicial records, conduct that undermines the fundamentals of a competent court!

3) Attorney’s electronic signature application in Net-HaMishpat

Figure. For comparison purpose, part of the electronic signature data of an attorney is provided below, from a record, which was electronically filed in 2011 - “Request for voiding a Judgment, which was rendered with no defense”. The electronic signature device, issued by Comsign LTD, was used here:

(1) “Owner’s name: [redacted]” the full name of the electronic signature instrument’s owner appears among the signature data;

(2) Capacity - “Attorney” and license number appear under a separate tab;

(3) Issuer is identified as “Comsign LTD” - a lawfully recognized Israeli corporation, which is also a lawful certifying authority, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001);

(4) “Valid from: September 13, 2009, valid until: September 13, 2012” - the electronic signature instrument was issued for a reasonable, limited period;

(5) Date and time of signature – are provided in a separate tab, as well as the type and size of electronic file, and encryption keys.