blog.cat.rights7 min read9/1/2026

Your Neighbor’s Camera Records Your Door or Yard: When Will an Israeli Court Order Its Removal?

The mere fact that the camera is installed on the neighbor’s wall or in the neighbor’s garden does not give the neighbor the right to record your private life. An Israeli court will examine not the camera’s housing, but its field of view, the purpose for which it was installed, the continuity of the surveillance, and whether the property can be protected in a less intrusive manner.

Numbers and facts

•1981 — the year the Protection of Privacy Law was enacted
•14 days — the period set for removing the cameras in the Bat Yam court decision
•40,000 ₪ — compensation and contribution toward fees and costs in the 2023 case
•1,500 ₪ — compensation in the 2022 case
•30 days — the storage threshold mentioned by the Authority for certain cases involving the exercise of the right of access

The Door, Yard, and Window Are Protected in Different Ways

Section 1 of the Protection of Privacy Law, 1981 prohibits infringing a person’s privacy without consent. Photographing a person in a private domain constitutes an infringement under Section 2(3), while following or surveillance liable to harass constitutes an infringement under Section 2(1). A camera aimed at a window, private yard, or the interior of an apartment therefore raises a particularly serious problem. A stair landing and shared entrance do not automatically become prohibited areas, but continuously recording every time you leave and every guest or delivery may also amount to following. The Supreme Court of Israel has emphasized that the concept of a private domain is determined not only by property rights, but also by a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Security Is a Legitimate Purpose, but Not a Blanket Justification

A neighbor is entitled to protect their door, car, and property, but the camera must be proportionate to that purpose. The court considers the viewing angle, operating duration, resolution, storage of recordings, and the existence of less intrusive alternatives, such as rotating the lens or restricting the frame. In Preisberg v. Gilad, the court regarded protection against property damage as a legitimate personal interest and permitted reliance on the relevant defense under the law. In another case, however, the claimed need to protect a garden from waste thrown from above did not justify recording the neighbors’ windows. Reliance on a police officer’s recommendation also does not automatically determine the dispute: the recommendation must be proven, and the recording itself must still be proportionate.

The Camera Is Installed on the Neighbor’s Property, but It Records You

The location where a camera is installed does not determine whether the recording is lawful. In a case concerning two cameras aimed at the windows of an adjoining apartment, the court expressly explained that installing the equipment in the defendant’s private garden did not negate the infringement of the residents’ privacy. In August 2023, the Bat Yam Magistrate’s Court also rejected a resident’s claim that he could install cameras on his own property as he pleased. Judge Ronit Ophir ordered the removal within 14 days of the cameras infringing the neighbor’s privacy and awarded a total of 40,000 shekels, including compensation and a contribution toward attorney’s fees and court costs. By contrast, compensation in another case in 2022 amounted to 1,500 shekels because the plaintiffs did not prove the extent of the damage; there is no uniform tariff for each camera.

What Evidence Shows That Actual Surveillance Is Taking Place?

It is useful to document the lens’s position and presumed field of view with photographs taken from several points: the door, window, yard, and shared passageway. Keep written correspondence sent to the neighbor, house committee, or apartment owner, as well as the responses, any refusal to change the angle, and information about the camera being reinstalled after its removal. Testimony from people who can confirm that the neighbor told you who had visited you, when you left, or what you were doing in the yard is important; in the Bat Yam Magistrate’s Court decision, considerable weight was given to the testimony of a former neighbor. Separately record the existence of a microphone, the transfer of recordings, and the publication of clips; recording a conversation without the consent of at least one participant may violate the Wiretapping Law. You should not smash, cover, or remove another person’s equipment yourself, because the dispute should concern the field of view and how the camera is used.

What Order Should Be Requested From the Court?

It is preferable not to limit the request to the physical removal of the device, but also to link it to ending the specific infringement. Depending on the circumstances, you may request removal or repositioning of the camera so that it records only the installing neighbor’s door, car, or property, without including your apartment, yard, and route of movement. This was precisely the remedy adopted in Case No. 152/10, Carmit Nahum v. Haim Castro: the camera was ordered moved and directed only at the defendants’ entrance, rather than removed entirely. A civil claim for removal of the camera and compensation is based on Section 4 of the Protection of Privacy Law; when recording in a private domain is intentional, a police complaint may also be filed under Section 5. If the camera is installed in the common property of a multi-apartment residential building, in violation of the bylaws or the rules of reasonable use, an application for its removal may also be submitted to the Inspector of Land Registration.

FAQ

Is recording a neighbor’s entrance door in a shared corridor lawful?

Not always. Limited recording of one’s own door for security purposes may be permissible, but continuously recording every time the neighbor leaves and every visitor may constitute following and unreasonable use of the common property.

Can access to the camera recordings be demanded?

With respect to a database of recordings, a person may request access to information about themselves, and it is preferable to link the request to a precisely specified place and time. The Privacy Protection Authority indicates that its enforcement practice concerning access applies to certain cases, including indexing by a person’s identity or storage for more than 30 days; information about another person cannot be obtained in this way.

Does a “Premises Under Video Surveillance” sign help?

The sign informs people that recording is taking place, but it does not make an unlawful camera angle lawful. Even a visible camera accompanied by a warning may infringe privacy if it records windows or a private yard, or systematically tracks neighbors.

What should you do if the neighbor claims that the police recommended installing the camera?

Ask the neighbor to prove the claim and clarify whether the police requested that the camera be aimed in a particular direction. In the Bat Yam Magistrate’s Court decision, unproven reliance on police instructions was rejected; even a proven recommendation does not eliminate the proportionality requirement.

Must you demand the camera’s complete removal?

No. If security can be maintained by rotating the lens, relocating the camera, or restricting its field of view, the court may prefer that specific order to complete removal.

What to do next

First document the camera’s angle, the areas it covers, the correspondence, and specific incidents showing that you or your guests were monitored. Then define the desired outcome: removal, relocation, a change of angle, exclusion of audio, or cessation of the use of recordings. The choice between a civil court, the police, and the Inspector of Land Registration depends on the installation location and the nature of the infringement.