Two consecutive public announcements issued by the Personal Data Protection Authority are significant in clarifying the limits of camera use.
1. General Framework
Nowadays, security cameras are widely used tools, in both private and public spaces. However, being for “security purposes” does not mean a camera may be placed wherever and however desired. The Personal Data Protection Authority has clarified these limits through two separate public announcements addressing workplaces and apartment buildings.
Main Point: Capturing footage with a camera is, legally, an act of processing personal data. This activity is therefore not automatically legitimized on the grounds of “security”; it must satisfy the conditions required under Law No. 6698
2. Common Ground: Rules Applicable to Both Areas
— Purpose must be determined in advance. The purpose for which the camera is installed must be clear, and its use must remain limited to that purpose.
— Proportionality must be observed. Footage must not be captured at a wider angle or in greater detail than necessary.
— The obligation to inform must be fulfilled. Individuals must be clearly notified that the area is being recorded; the use of hidden cameras violates this obligation.
— The retention period must be kept limited. Footage must not be kept longer than the purpose requires; if footage relates to an incident, only that footage may be retained, and only for the duration of the related legal process.
— Access must be authorized. Only authorized persons may access the footage; unauthorized sharing is not permitted.
Where a failure to comply with these principles is established, the Authority is empowered to impose administrative fines pursuant to Article 18 of Law No. 6698.
3. Where Is the Line Drawn in the Workplace?
The legal basis for camera use in the workplace is not limited to the Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK); the employer’s protective obligations toward employees under the Code of Obligations and the Occupational Health and Safety Law add to this basis. However, the Authority specifically emphasizes that this broad basis does not amount to unlimited use:
— “Performance monitoring” is not a legitimate justification. The use of cameras for abstract purposes such as monitoring employee productivity or enforcing discipline is expressly rejected by the Authority.
— Certain areas are absolutely prohibited. No camera may be placed in restrooms, changing rooms, prayer rooms, or rest areas, under any justification.
— Audio recording carries a separate sensitivity. Because audio recording is considered more intrusive than video, it must not be used without an explicit legal justification.
— The employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy must be protected. Being at the workplace does not eliminate this expectation.
4. Where Is the Line Drawn in Apartment Buildings?
The Condominium Ownership Law governs the management of common areas and the responsibilities of the site manager. The key points highlighted in the Authority’s apartment-building announcement are as follows:
— The area in front of a unit’s door and the stairwell are considered sensitive areas. A camera may not be positioned so that it can see into the interior of a unit when its door is opened.
— Facial recognition and audio recording are directly excluded. Unlike the workplace announcement, this is not framed as something requiring “careful assessment” — it is a clear prohibition.
— The elevator requires a separate justification. Even though it is a common area, because it is a narrow, enclosed space, an explicit justification is required before a camera may be placed there.
— Recording must be narrow-angle and masked. Wide-angle footage that captures unnecessary areas must be avoided.
5. Comparison: Both Areas at a Glance
6. Practical Conclusions
— Camera installation in the workplace may not be based on the purpose of monitoring employee performance; the justification must be limited to workplace safety or crime prevention.
— Unlike in the workplace, facial recognition and audio-recording features may not be used in apartment buildings under any justification.
— In both settings, the obligation to inform and a limited retention period are minimum requirements independent of the purpose of installation.
— The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test takes concrete form differently in each setting — in private areas such as restrooms and changing rooms in the workplace, and in the area in front of a unit’s door and the elevator in apartment buildings.
7. Conclusion
The shared message of the two announcements can in fact be summarized in a single sentence: a security camera may be a legitimate need, but this does not grant the right to record everything. Four elements — a clear purpose, a limited scope, informing the individuals concerned, and not retaining footage longer than necessary — form the unchanging minimum framework for both workplaces and apartment buildings.
Before installing a camera system as an employer or apartment site manager, the questions that must be asked are: why is this footage being captured, how long will it be kept, and who will be able to access it? Where these questions cannot be answered clearly, this may be an indication that the system extends beyond the limits set by the KVKK.