The web is full of discussions about the problems of eavesdropping on emails. 
As I understand it, everywhere outside of DC this is considered
illegal, the equivalent of opening other people's mail and wiretapping
(barring a court order, of course).

Is this also the case for eavesdropping on instant messaging?
It would seem to be the direct equivalent of wire-tapping.  
Granted, the parties conversing are difficult to identify, at least
for a layperson, but still it would seem that should not make any
difference  - also the fact that the eavesdropper does not understand
the language used in the IM.

Some of you will recognize why I am asking this.  I prefer to hope
that the GAlaxy can clarify this without involving the powers that be.

An excellent answer would be a reference to an authoritative link.
A strong answer would be a BRIEF convincing opinion based on general
legal principles.
Comments that show a consensus one way or the other would be appreciated.

Thank you, Myoarin

---

Request for Question Clarification by denco-ga on 25 Oct 2006 11:01 PDT

Howdy Myoarin,

This is covered, with some exceptions, by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, at least in the United States.
http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html

"...
1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who--

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other
person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic
communication;
...
(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection
(5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
..."

Is this what you are looking for as an answer?

Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher

---

Clarification of Question by myoarin-ga on 25 Oct 2006 13:54 PDT

Hi Denco,

That is just what I wanted to see.  :-)

I also like this passage:

"(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;

(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other
person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication,
knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained
through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication
in violation of this subsection; or

(d) ...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to
suit as provided in subsection (5).

Thank you.  Please post an answer.

Myo

Thanks for accepting this as your answer, Myo.

The example that you outline, with some exceptions, is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), at least in the United States,
which indeed includes, as you point out, the District of Columbia.

You can read the text of the ECPA on the US Internet Industry Association
(USIIA) website.  The following is a barebones pertinent excerpt.
http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html

"...
1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who--

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other
person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic
communication;
...
(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection
(5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
..."

If you need any clarification, please feel fre to ask.


Search strategy: Personal knowledge.

Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher

---

Request for Answer Clarification by myoarin-ga on 25 Oct 2006 15:32 PDT

Hmmm?  I wanted to avoid forcing a clarification, but the system is
insisting on one and has comments blocked.
But that is what I wanted to ask about.  After I posted this question,
it disappeared  - didn't show up as freshly posted.  Did you
immediately lock it?
You mentioned that you thought you locked another question and
discovered that comments could still be posted.  Seems like the system
is having some twitches.
Just wondering.  
Thanks, Myo

---

Clarification of Answer by denco-ga on 25 Oct 2006 16:42 PDT

Not a problem Myo, and no, I didn't lock it immediately, but around an hour
after your clarification.  I suspect a corrupted database, and all sorts of
strange things are happening, but GARs are not privy to much anything other
than what everyone else knows.

- denco-ga

Excellent, Denco.  Thank you.
I am sorry if this cuts into the income of one of your colleagues, but
after reading the law, it seems in the interest of all, including our
host here.

I'd be interested in your answer to my comment below.
Regards and "looking forward," myself,
Myo

Much, much thanks for the kind comment, Myo, and you are most welcome.  Many
thanks for the 5 star rating and nice tip.  All is appreciated.

Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher

Hi myoarin-ga,

I assume that you were referring to my recent activities with a
certain customer.  I assume that the customer has access to the log
files of the pertinent conversations, and therefore did not intercept
them.  I have requested the Google Answers editor to remove several
questions which violated the terms of service (included personal
information).  As long as the question does not prima facie violate
the terms of service, it is not up to me to judge the intents of the
customer.

Thanks,
secret901-ga

Hi Secret901,

I agree with your last sentence.  I just have difficulty assuming the
IM material cannot be considered to have been intercepted and have to
assume that posting it as questions is "intentional disclosure".

Regards, Myoarin