Decree 330/2026 provides only one exception for disclosing recorded data: “Providing it in response to a written request from a competent authority.” It includes no exception for journalism or the public interest.
The Latest: On Aug. 19, the government issued Decree No. 330/2026, which sets administrative penalties for violations involving cybersecurity and personal data protection.
- The decree took effect the same day.
The Details: Point b, Clause 2, Article 71, which covers violations involving personal data obtained through audio or video recordings in public places, imposes fines for “unlawfully extracting, sharing, or publicly disclosing audio or video data, except when provided in response to a written request from a competent authority.”
- Under this provision, individuals face fines of 15 million to 25 million đồng.
- Organizations committing the same violation face fines of 30 million to 50 million đồng.
In addition to a fine, violators may have related items and equipment confiscated under Clause 3, Article 71.
- Point a, Clause 4, Article 71 also requires that collected audio and visual data be “destroyed or deleted beyond recovery.”
Legal Ambiguity: What remains unclear is how the law defines these violations.
- Whether an act constitutes a violation depends on the term “unlawfully,” but none of Decree 330’s 82 articles explains what the term means.
The decree also does not define what constitutes the lawful extraction, sharing, or public disclosure of recorded data.
- Under Point b, Clause 2, Article 71, the only route expressly identified as lawful is turning the data over to a government authority.
The Background: Controlling cyberspace has been one of the Ministry of Public Security’s top priorities in recent years.
- The ministry proposed Decree 330/2026, and Article 82 assigns the minister of public security responsibility for overseeing, guiding, and organizing its implementation.
Government Misconduct on Camera: Many cases involving misconduct by government officials have come to light because residents recorded incidents or extracted surveillance footage and posted it on social media.
For example, on Sept. 28, 2022, a video lasting more than five minutes spread across social media. It showed two young men on a motorbike being repeatedly struck on the head and body by two police officers using their feet, knees, traffic batons, and helmets, even as one of the men clasped his hands and pleaded with them.
- The incident was captured by a surveillance camera at a shrimp-purchasing business.
- Only after the video was posted online were five officers from the Vĩnh Châu Town Police’s Traffic and Public Order Police Team held legally accountable.
At the time, Thanh Niên reported that some people had called for an investigation into who circulated the footage and whether its distribution violated the law.
- However, Atty. Nguyễn Kiều Hưng of the Hồ Chí Minh City Bar Association reported that the law did not prohibit recording and using images to protect public security and order, report unlawful conduct, or serve the common good. Such actions, he said, should even be welcomed.
In November 2023, two more videos circulated on social media, showing a man in civilian clothing repeatedly swearing, making threats and holding bricks and stones as if preparing to attack the person filming.
- On Nov. 28, 2023, Bình Dương Provincial Police leaders confirmed that the man appearing in one of the videos was an officer with the Traffic Police Division.
- They said they would review the case and deal severely with any violations as a deterrent.
Why It Matters: The new provision recognizes only one exception for disclosing recorded data: providing it in response to a written request from a competent authority.
- The decree establishes no exception for journalism, reporting suspected legal violations or cases involving the public interest.
This contrasts with Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code, which governs an individual’s rights to their image.
- This article expressly provides two circumstances in which consent from the person depicted is not required: when an image is used in the “national, ethnic, or public interest” and when it is obtained from “public activities without harming the honor, dignity, or reputation” of the person shown.
- Decree 330 does not restate these exceptions.
Thành Phương wrote this news article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on August 28, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine translated it into English.
