Right to privacy and non-consensual filming of citizens

You are sitting with friends at a tea stall, walking through a market, or enjoying a concert or movie when you realise someone nearby is filming. A few hours later, you are in a video with a loud caption, and the comment section has already decided who you are. This has now become a common scenario in Bangladesh. 

The rise of social media monetisation in recent years has made this practice increasingly visible. Formal journalists and broadcasters must follow the National Broadcasting Policy 2014, which restricts defamatory content, misleading information, and violations of personal privacy. However, the same standards rarely apply to self-proclaimed vloggers and content creators who record strangers without consent. Women, in particular, suffer the most, as their images are frequently used for sensational content and public scrutiny. 

This normalisation of digital harassment usually rests on one argument: there is no privacy in public. However, the modern legal jurisprudence draws a crucial distinction between incidental observation and targeted fixation. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in multiple judgments, has recognised that even in public places, people have a ‘zone of interaction’ with others that is protected as part of their private life. In Von Hannover v Germany (2004), it ruled that filming someone merely to satisfy public curiosity, which adds nothing to a genuine public debate, may violate the right to privacy. 

Similarly, when you enter a tea stall, you accept that people around you can see you. However, you do not automatically consent to your face being recorded, captioned, and permanently displayed to thousands of strangers. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 16 on Article 17 of the ICCPR, to which Bangladesh is a party, similarly states that individuals must be protected from arbitrary interference with their privacy, honour and reputation. Privacy, therefore, includes a degree of control over how personal information and images are used. These protections are also reflected in our Constitution. Article 32 protects life and personal liberty, while Article 43 recognises privacy (although to a certain extent), and Article 39 allows free speech subject to reasonable restrictions. 

Moreover, existing laws already provide remedies against harmful digital conduct. Publishing an accusation meant to damage someone’s reputation is defamation under sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code, and calling a woman unchaste may fit that squarely. Next, section 509 punishes words, gestures, or acts that insult a woman’s modesty or intrude on her privacy. Threatening to publish or share private content can amount to criminal intimidation under section 506. Penalties go up when images or videos are edited for sexual harassment. Making or sharing morphed sexual images, AI-generated sexual content, or doctored intimate videos can be punished under section 8 of the Pornography Control Act 2012 and section 25 of the Cyber Protection Act 2026. Both aim at digital content used to harm, threaten, or harass a person. 

If this happens to you, save the evidence first: screenshots, links, the page name, dates, and comments. Then report the content to the platform. After that, go to the police station and file a general diary entry or a case. If the police refuse to act, you can file a complaint petition directly with a magistrate. You can also request the police to seek removal of the content through the National Cyber Protection Agency. Under section 8 of the Cyber Protection Act 2026, law enforcement agencies can ask the BTRC to block harmful content through the agency’s Director General. You can ask the court or tribunal handling your case to order the content removed as well. Cyber Tribunals hear online offences, and women and children repression tribunals hear the relevant cases.

If newspapers, online portals, or TV channels later publish a clip, you can file complaints with the relevant authorities. Complaints against broadcasters can be sent to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, while complaints against newspapers and news agencies can be filed with the Bangladesh Press Council under the Press Council Act 1974. However, these remedies apply only to media outlets, not individuals posting content on their own platforms. 

Civil remedies also remain available but are rarely used. A person affected by harmful publication may seek damages through a defamation suit or request an injunction to remove the content. Where authorities fail to act, a writ petition under Article 102 may seek judicial directions for appropriate action. 

For immediate danger, call 999. The government’s free 24/7 helpline 109 provides guidance on violence against women and children, including cyber abuse, while legal aid is available through 16430.

However, these remedies often come into play only after the victim has already suffered harm. The bigger challenge is holding unregulated content creators accountable for recording, sharing, and profiting from people’s private moments. Therefore, we urgently need a regulatory framework that distinguishes genuine mobile journalism from exploitative content creation.

Sharmista Banik is an intern at the Law Desk, the Daily Star.