Lithuania proposes stricter rules for video surveillance to protect privacy

Lithuania’s parliament is considering legal amendments that would ban video surveillance in private areas such as neighbours’ properties, toilets, bathhouses, and changing rooms, LRT reports.

The proposed changes to the Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, submitted by liberal MP Arminas Lydeka, aim to clarify ambiguous regulations and prevent misuse of surveillance technology. Under current rules, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides broad guidelines, but Lydeka argues these are often interpreted inconsistently in practice, leading to disputes and privacy violations.

“Rapid technological progress and cheaper equipment have led to a surge in video camera use, both in business and private life,” Lydeka told parliament on Tuesday. “This has caused a rise in complaints to the State Data Protection Inspectorate and legal disputes, especially over monitoring neighbouring areas and privacy breaches.”

The amendments would explicitly prohibit surveillance in spaces where absolute privacy is expected, including toilets, showers, saunas, changing rooms, medical examination rooms, and employee break areas. Lydeka stressed that defining these “no-surveillance zones” would prevent severe violations of personal dignity and private life.

To avoid capturing neighbouring properties or public spaces, the proposal requires physical restrictions on camera angles or the use of permanent, irreversible masking technology. It also introduces a standard 14-day retention period for video data to prevent excessive storage.

Operators would be obligated to clearly inform individuals before they enter monitored areas. Lydeka expects the changes to reduce household conflicts, lawsuits, and complaints.

Conservative MP Jurgita Sejonienė raised concerns about compatibility with telemedicine expansion and worker safety laws, noting existing provisions for emergency medical staff and social workers to use recording devices. Lydeka assured that necessary surveillance would still be permitted but emphasised the importance of prior notification.