In Kosovo, the clash between modern security needs and the enduring right to privacy is playing out in real time, echoing a broader global debate about how much of our lives should be open to surveillance—and who gets to decide. Over the past year, the country’s Information and Privacy Agency (IPA) has found itself at the center of a growing storm of complaints, inspections, and legal dilemmas, all fueled by advances in technology that make it easier than ever to observe, record, and share private moments.
According to BIRN, the IPA’s workload has surged dramatically in 2025. By early December, the agency had conducted 155 inspections in response to 51 formal complaints from citizens concerned about privacy violations related to security cameras. The trend is unmistakable: more people are worried about their privacy, and they’re increasingly willing to speak up when they feel it’s at risk. "In recent months, we have seen a growing trend when it comes to inspections but also complaints submitted by citizens," said Kushtrim Mustafa, the IPA’s Acting Director for Protection of Personal Data. "This shows that citizens are becoming increasingly aware to react when they suspect that their privacy is being violated."
One case in Viti/Vitina illustrates the tension. A resident, Mustafi, reported his neighbor, Samet Mustafa, to the police for allegedly pointing a security camera into Mustafi’s yard and part of the road leading to his house. Samet Mustafa insisted that he had no intention of filming his neighbor’s property, telling BIRN, "We don’t want to see his yard, but we have a property, and we need to protect it." Yet, when BIRN gained access to the camera feed, it was clear that at least one camera did in fact capture part of Mustafi’s property—despite Mustafa’s denials.
Under Kosovo’s regulations, the rules are clear. Entities wishing to install security cameras must first seek permission from the IPA, display a notice that the area is under surveillance, and specify how long the recorded data will be kept. Private property owners are only allowed to monitor their own perimeter—not public spaces or their neighbors’ land. "Cameras are placed for the security of people, property and confidential information, but without violating citizens’ privacy," explained Mustafa. "In private properties, camera surveillance can only monitor the owner’s perimeter, not public spaces or the properties of neighbours."
Even public institutions have run afoul of these rules. In one instance, a school in the municipality of Malisheve/Malisevo was found to have installed cameras in violation of the law. The IPA stepped in and halted their use until the situation was corrected. These incidents underscore a persistent challenge: as surveillance technology becomes more accessible and affordable, the temptation to use it—sometimes inappropriately—grows stronger.
But the IPA, for all its vigilance, is struggling to keep up. The agency is stretched thin, with only six inspectors in its Department for Personal Data Protection. "The limited number of officials is evident because currently only six inspectors are engaged in the Department for Personal Data Protection," Mustafa acknowledged. "In addition to the need to raise awareness of public and private controllers on the protection of personal data, including the supervision of the installation of cameras, the main difficulty of the Agency is the lack of professional capacities that make it impossible to inspect and supervise the implementation of the Law in accordance with the needs and mandate of the Agency."
Most of the agency’s supervision comes as a result of citizen complaints or through inspections guided by a predetermined work plan. The law also requires that any use of surveillance cameras be both proportionate and lawful—a balancing act that is easier said than done.
Lawyer Arber Jashari, speaking to BIRN, pointed out that much of this demand for private security could be alleviated if public institutions were more effective at protecting citizens. "Citizens’ safety is the state’s responsibility and the more effective the institutions are, the less need citizens have to take special personal measures," he said. In other words, when people feel the state is not doing enough, they take matters into their own hands—sometimes at the expense of their neighbors’ privacy.
This local struggle is hardly unique to Kosovo. Across the world, the tension between privacy and security has only intensified. As reported by the Financial Times, technological and societal threats to privacy are greater than ever, yet privacy is not dead—and it’s still worth fighting for. The proliferation of devices, from video doorbells to drones, means that private moments are more easily captured and shared than at any point in history. The rise of artificial intelligence and biometric data collection has turbocharged scrutiny, making it almost impossible to live "off grid."
Even the most exposed public figures are not exempt. The law recognizes that everyone, no matter how prominent, has the right to respect for their private and family life, and to prevent unwarranted intrusion. Legal protections for private information—and against those who would invade private lives—remain robust and are being applied in novel ways as technology evolves. The Supreme Court has even upheld privacy injunctions in the face of intense online speculation, recognizing the harm that additional scrutiny and media intrusion can cause.
Importantly, privacy law does not exist in a vacuum. It must be balanced against freedom of expression, with built-in safeguards to prevent trivial claims and to ensure that material genuinely in the public interest can still be published. As the Financial Times notes, "Being 'for' privacy does not mean being against freedom of expression. They are two equal but competing rights, always in tension." The law now recognizes individual autonomy, allowing each person to decide what aspects of their private life to disclose, when, and to whom.
In practice, this means setting clear expectations before sharing information, and actively policing privacy boundaries. If those boundaries are crossed, unlawful interference must be addressed—something Kosovo’s IPA is striving to do, even as it grapples with limited resources and a rising tide of complaints.
Ultimately, privacy is a human right deeply connected to dignity and autonomy. As technology continues to evolve, the fight to protect that right becomes more urgent—and more complex. For the people of Kosovo and beyond, the message is clear: vigilance, awareness, and robust legal protections are essential if privacy is to survive in the digital age.