For purposes of eavesdropping, which of the following actions is NOT attributable to a principal?

The correct answer highlights that employing another to uncover surveillance devices does not constitute an action attributable to a principal regarding eavesdropping. In the context of eavesdropping laws, a principal is typically considered to be someone who is facilitating or benefiting from illegal surveillance activities, directly or indirectly.

When a principal derives any benefit from information obtained through illegal eavesdropping, employs someone else to illegally eavesdrop, or directs someone to engage in eavesdropping, they are actively participating or inciting the illegal act. These actions align with the principles of accountability in law, where the principal can be held liable for the actions of their agents doing something unlawful on their behalf.

On the other hand, employing someone to uncover surveillance devices does not fall under the same legal scrutiny. This action is generally seen as a protective measure, rather than an attempt to engage in or benefit from illegal eavesdropping. It is focused on identifying and neutralizing potential illegal surveillance rather than conducting it. As such, this action does not implicate the principal in illegal eavesdropping activities, which firmly supports its standing as the correct answer in this context.