Invasion of Privacy

The issues

With the introduction of increasingly elaborate high-tech gadgets, it has become easier to invade personal privacy. For example, it is now possible to buy a scanner with which one can to eavesdrop on conversations made on cellular and portable phones.

A. Is there a prohibition in Jewish law in listening other people's phone conversations?

B. Are there any situations in which it would be permitted under Jewish law to listen to the conversations of others without their knowledge and permission?

The Jewish Perspective

A. About 1000 years ago Rabbeinu Gershom (also known as Me'or Hagolah, the "Light of the Diaspora") issued a ban on the unauthorised reading of private letters. This prohibition applies even if the reader does not take the letter to his own domain. However, if the owner of the letter subsequently discarded it, it is permissible to read it.

This ban, which remains effective today, must be considered as being as grave as any other Torah prohibition. It was embraced and accepted by all Jewish communities throughout the world when it was issued, without limitation of time.

B. Included in this ban is the unauthorised perusal of any information that a person prefers to remain private, for example bank statements, health records or credit card bills.

The prohibition applies even if the person looking at these items does not plan to act on the information that he sees, or if he is merely curious to find in what other people think or write about him.

C. It appears logical that this ban would nowadays include deliberate eavesdropping on private telephone conversations. This is forbidden if, in result of the eavesdropping, one of the conversing parties would be financially hurt or personal information would become publicly known. Indeed, the same applies even if neither party to the conversation would be damaged by the fact that someone else was aware of their conversation.

D. It is sometimes permitted to examine another's personal letters and documents and to listen in on private conversations. This is is the case where, in doing so, the result is to help the person whose privacy is being invaded, or others, in either a physical or spiritual manner. Rabbeinu Gershom's decree was never intended to cover such situations. For example, where parents or educators have reasonable suspicion that a child or student is involved with peers who are influencing him in a harmful manner, whether physically or spiritually. Similarly, if parents or educators are concerned that a child or student has been involved in wrongdoing, they or an agent of a Beth Din (Rabbinical Court) may look at his private letters or listen in on his conversations, in order to deal with the problem effectively. However, if no positive result could possibly come from this -- and parents or educators are just curious to know what a child's opinion of them is -- the ban would apply.