- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
- in European Union
- Introduction
In certain cases, businesses consider expanding the scope of their existing camera systems—used for security and monitoring purposes—to include audio recording in addition to visual recording. However, such practices entail significant legal risks under Turkish Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (“Law”).
This article examines the lawfulness of audio recording practices in areas such as reception desks and safes/cash registers within business premises, in light of the Law and relevant case law.
- Assessment under the Law
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Law, personal data must be processed for specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and the data processing activity must be relevant, limited, and proportionate to the purpose for which it is processed. These principles constitute the fundamental criteria for determining the scope of monitoring tools used in workplace surveillance activities.
As emphasized in the established decisions of the Turkish Data Protection Board (“Board”), obtaining audio recordings in addition to visual recordings for a purpose that can already be achieved through visual data alone may constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality. The Board explicitly states that audio recording creates a perception of constant surveillance for individuals and represents a more severe interference with the right to protection of personal data.
This assessment also varies depending on the nature of the area where the monitoring takes place. In publicly accessible areas such as reception desks, it is practically not feasible for data subjects to provide explicit consent based on their free will. Even in more restricted areas such as cash registers/safes, relying solely on security concerns is insufficient; there must be a demonstrable necessity showing that audio recording is indispensable and constitutes a measure of last resort.
Recent Board decisions further indicate that the lawfulness of workplace surveillance activities is not assessed solely based on purpose, but also by considering multiple factors collectively, including the nature of the tools used, camera placement, data retention periods, access authorizations, and the reasonable expectation of privacy of data subjects. Within this framework, where the same objective can be achieved through less intrusive means, resorting to more intrusive data processing activities is not permissible.
In fact, the Board acknowledges that visual recording for security purposes may create a certain level of reasonable expectation; however, it emphasizes that audio recording exceeds this expectation and therefore constitutes a more severe interference with the right to privacy. Furthermore, the aim of obtaining evidence for potential future disputes is not, on its own, considered a lawful basis for audio recording.
On the other hand, providing information or placing signage indicating that audio recording is being carried out is important in terms of fulfilling the obligation to inform under the Law; however, this alone does not render the data processing activity lawful. The lawfulness of data processing also requires compliance with the general principles and legal grounds set forth under the Law.
- Supreme Court’s Case Law
In its decision numbered 2020/1482 E., 2020/5244 K., the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court clearly established that audio recordings obtained without the knowledge of employees constitute unlawfully obtained evidence.
The decision further emphasizes that relying solely on workplace order or supervision grounds is insufficient, and that intrusive methods such as audio recording may only be considered under exceptional circumstances.
In this respect, the Supreme Court’s approach aligns with that of the Board and demonstrates that the use of audio recording as a general and continuous practice is not legally acceptable.
- Conclusion
When legislation and case law are evaluated together, it is evident that while visual recording may be considered lawful under certain conditions, audio recording is not assessed within the same scope. Particularly in publicly accessible areas, audio recording is regarded as an interference exceeding the reasonable expectations of data subjects. Even in more limited-access areas, continuous or systematic audio recording practices are highly likely to violate the principle of proportionality.
Justifications such as security, supervision, or facilitating evidence in potential disputes do not, on their own, legitimize audio recording. Furthermore, there is also a risk that data obtained in this manner may not be admissible as evidence in future proceedings.
Within this framework, integrating audio recording into existing camera systems in business environments may give rise to significant administrative sanctions and legal risks under the Law, and therefore requires careful legal assessment prior to implementation.
***
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
