Is Wiretapping Without Authorisation Illegal? Here Are the Rules
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Wiretapping is the act of secretly obtaining information or recording someone’s communications. It is often associated with criminal investigations, but can also raise legal issues when carried out without authority or a valid legal basis.
In Indonesia, wiretapping is not an unrestricted power available to anyone. It touches on the right to privacy and is regulated by several laws. The rules must also be read in light of the distinction between interception by law-enforcement officials for investigative purposes and wiretapping by parties without authority.
Attention to the issue intensified again on 3 November 2026, following the designation of several police officials as suspects in connection with alleged wiretapping that did not follow lawful procedures. The case remains under investigation, so the allegations reported should not be treated as a finding of guilt.
So, is wiretapping without authorisation illegal, and what rules apply in Indonesia?
Legal rules on wiretapping in Indonesia
1. The ITE Law prohibits unauthorised interception
Rules on the interception of electronic communications are set out in Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (the ITE Law), as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 and Law No. 1 of 2024.
Article 31 of the ITE Law prohibits the intentional interception of another person’s electronic information or documents without right or in violation of the law.
This covers intercepting information within an electronic system as well as capturing the transmission of non-public information. An exception applies to interception for law-enforcement purposes at the request of the police, prosecutors or another body whose authority is established by law.
This means that a person cannot arbitrarily wiretap another person’s telephone calls, private messages or electronic communications on the grounds that they want to find out about that person’s activities or private affairs.
2. The Telecommunications Law also prohibits wiretapping
The prohibition on wiretapping is also set out in Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications.
Article 40 states that everyone is prohibited from intercepting information transmitted through telecommunications networks in any form.
Article 42 requires telecommunications service providers to keep confidential information sent and received by customers. Information may be provided for criminal proceedings only in accordance with the rules and requests provided for by law.
This provision affirms that communications over telecommunications networks are private information that must be protected.
3. The Criminal Code sets penalties for illegal wiretapping
In addition to the ITE Law and Telecommunications Law, unlawful wiretapping is addressed in the National Criminal Code, Law No. 1 of 2023.
Article 258 provides for penalties for anyone who unlawfully listens to, records, diverts, alters, obstructs or notes the transmission of non-public electronic information and documents.
The offence is punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to category VI.
This provision is important because the National Criminal Code came into force on 2 January 2026. Accordingly, criminal penalties for wiretapping should be considered under the Criminal Code now in force, rather than relying solely on penalty provisions from earlier versions of the ITE Law.
Wiretapping for law-enforcement purposes is subject to its own rules. Officials cannot use their investigative powers as a justification for intercepting communications without a legal basis.
Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which has been in force since 2 January 2026, addresses wiretapping in Article 136. The first paragraph states that investigators may conduct wiretapping for investigative purposes. The second says that wiretapping will be regulated by a separate law.
In January 2026, Deputy Minister of Law Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej said investigators and public prosecutors could not conduct wiretapping in cases without a specific legal basis until a wiretapping law was enacted. He cited corruption and terrorism offences as exceptions, as they already have sector-specific regulations.
Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code therefore cannot be interpreted as giving all officials permission to wiretap members of the public freely. Such powers must still have an appropriate legal basis.
Does wiretapping require court authorisation?
The authorisation required for wiretapping depends on the type of case and the law granting officials the relevant powers.
It is not accurate to conclude that law-enforcement agencies can always wiretap without court authorisation. Nor can the procedures be treated as uniform, since sector-specific laws set out their own rules and processes.
Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code calls for further regulation through a specific law. In July 2026, the House of Representatives’ Legislative Body said that drafting a Wiretapping Bill was necessary to consolidate rules currently dispersed across various sectoral laws.
The proposed bill is expected to provide certainty about the powers, procedures and oversight governing wiretapping. However, plans to draft a bill should not be mistaken for legislation that is already in force.
In everyday life, wiretapping can be carried out in various ways, including through software or special devices used to obtain personal information without the owner’s knowledge.
Examples of conduct that could potentially breach the law include:
- Wiretapping someone else’s phone calls
Installing a device or using an application to listen to private conversations without authorisation may constitute illegal interception.
- Accessing private messages without permission
Breaking into someone’s account or electronic system to read private communications may involve offences relating to illegal access as well as wiretapping.
- Secretly installing a recording device
Secretly recording private communications may raise legal issues, depending on how and where the recording was made and its purpose.
- Using intercepted material to distribute private information
Disseminating the results of wiretapping may give rise to additional legal issues, particularly if it is done to threaten someone, cause harm or violate another person’s rights.
Nevertheless, not every act of recording a conversation automatically constitutes wiretapping. Its legal status depends on the context, the method of recording, whether the person recording was a participant, and the applicable laws.
If someone believes their communications or personal device have been wiretapped without permission, there are several steps they can take to protect themselves and follow up on the suspected interception.
- Keep any available evidence
Document suspicious messages, account-access notifications, unfamiliar activity on devices or other relevant information.
- Secure personal accounts
Change passwords, enable two-factor authentication and check which devices are connected to the accounts.
- Check device security
Make sure there are no suspicious applications or unrecognised access. If necessary, seek help from a digital-security professional.
- Report the suspected offence
If there is evidence pointing to illegal wiretapping, the victim can report it to the police for follow-up under the relevant procedures.
- Consult a legal expert
Legal advice can help identify the relevant provisions and determine what steps to take based on the available evidence.
Wiretapping without right or a valid legal basis may constitute an offence in Indonesia. The prohibitions are connected to the protection of personal information and electronic communications under the ITE Law, Telecommunications Law and National Criminal Code.
Conversely, wiretapping for law-enforcement purposes may be conducted only by parties with authority under the law and must comply with the applicable rules.
Wiretapping therefore cannot be justified merely by a desire to find out someone’s private information. Every such action must have a clear legal basis to avoid violating privacy rights and incurring criminal consequences.