Lebanon
Lebanon Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Penalties (2026)
Lebanon has no statute that squarely addresses recording a conversation you are part of. The Penal Code articles often cited for this question actually target telecom employees and third parties using trickery, not participants, leaving the practice legally unclear rather than settled.
Can You Record a Conversation in Lebanon?
No Lebanese statute located in this research squarely states whether a participant may record their own conversation. Older summaries of Lebanese law point to Penal Code Articles 579 through 581, but a verbatim reading of the Arabic text shows none of the three offenses is built around a participant recording a call they are part of. Law No. 140/1999, Lebanon's telecommunications interception statute, is instead structured to regulate state and security-agency access to communications. Because no source resolves the participant question directly, this page treats Lebanon's consent rule as unclear rather than asserting a one-party or all-party position.
The Penal Code Articles Often Cited for Recording Law, and What They Actually Say
Article 579 of the Penal Code (Legislative Decree No. 340/1943) punishes a person who, by virtue of their position, office, profession or craft, learns a secret and discloses it without lawful cause or uses it for personal benefit, where the disclosure is likely to cause harm. This is a professional-secrecy offense aimed at doctors, lawyers, clergy, bankers and similar professionals. It has nothing to do with recording a conversation and should not be cited as Lebanese recording law.
Article 580 punishes a postal or telegraph-service employee who abuses their position to view, destroy or embezzle a sealed letter or disclose its contents to someone other than the addressee, and applies the same penalty to a telephone-service employee who discloses a call they learned of through their job. The provision targets insiders at communications companies, not members of the public.
Article 581 punishes a non-employee third party who intentionally opens a letter or telegram not addressed to them, or who gains access to a telephone communication by trickery. The same penalty applies to anyone who, having learned of a communication this way, discloses it in a manner that harms another. The text is built around a stranger deceiving their way into a communication; it does not squarely address a participant who simply records the call they themselves are having.
Law No. 140/1999: Lebanon's Telecommunications Interception Act
Law No. 140/1999 states that domestic and international communications by fixed phone, mobile, fax or email are protected and cannot be tapped, monitored, intercepted or disclosed except as the law authorizes, according to Privacy International's review of the statute. The Official Gazette text of the law could not be independently reached for this article.
Under Articles 2 and 3, an investigating judge may authorize interception for crimes carrying at least one year of imprisonment, on a written request showing utmost necessity. The order must specify the method of communication, the crime under investigation and a duration capped at two months.
Article 9 provides a separate administrative track. The Interior Minister or Defense Minister may authorize interception, with the Prime Minister's approval, to combat terrorism, crimes against state security and organized crime, also capped at two months.
Article 16 creates a three-judge commission meant to oversee interceptions, but reporting cited by Privacy International indicates this oversight is largely symbolic. A 2014 Cabinet decision reportedly granted six-month blanket access that exceeded the law's own two-month cap. Taken together, the statute's architecture (judicial authorization, ministerial approval, a defined duration cap, and oversight by a standing commission) is built around regulating state and security-agency interception. Nothing in the sourced material extends this framework to a private citizen recording their own call.
Data Protection: Law No. 81/2018
Law No. 81/2018, the Electronic Transactions and Personal Data law, governs the collection, recording, storage, use, transmission and disclosure of personal data. A law-firm review published by DLA Piper addresses consent only in narrow contexts, a registration exemption where the data subject agreed in advance and a consent requirement for marketing email, without setting out a general statutory definition of consent.
Lebanon has no independent data protection authority. Reporting on the law describes the Ministry of Economy and Trade as issuing processing permits and functioning as the closest thing to a regulator, with enforcement otherwise routed through the courts and the public prosecutor.
Article 106 penalizes collecting or processing personal data without the required permit, license or declaration, and unauthorized disclosure of processed personal data, with a fine of LBP 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 and/or imprisonment of three to 36 months according to a law-firm summary of the statute. Whether a recorded voice or image counts as personal data under this law was not resolved by any source located for this article.
Recording the Police and Security Forces
No statute located in this research specifically addresses filming police or security forces in Lebanon. What is documented is conduct, not law. Human Rights Watch reported that during the October and November 2019 protests, Lebanese Army personnel confiscated the phones of people recording and ordered people not to film them, and that army intelligence officers attacked people filming soldiers beating protesters. An An-Nahar journalist reported that after he refused an Internal Security Forces order to stop filming an attack on protesters on 29 October 2019, an ISF officer attacked him from behind and grabbed his arm. These incidents describe how security forces responded on the ground; they do not establish that any specific recording statute was being enforced.
Surveillance Cameras (CCTV)
Municipal camera networks operate in Beirut, though the scale and cost figures reported for them could not be confirmed against a source that states them, and are therefore not repeated here. No dedicated statute governing CCTV deployment or private CCTV use was identified in this research, and no rule on employer video or audio monitoring of employees was located in any source.
How Lebanon's Approach Compares Regionally
Lebanon's unresolved participant-recording question sits alongside other jurisdictions in the region that have reached clearer, though different, answers. Readers comparing frameworks can see how Jordan recording laws and Israel recording laws address the same question, or review Egypt recording laws for a third approach. The full set of country pages is indexed on the world recording laws hub.
| Offense | Penalty | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| Breach of professional secrecy by a position, profession or office holder, where likely to cause harm | Up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine up to LBP 400,000 | Penal Code Art. 579 |
| Postal/telegraph employee misusing position; telephone employee disclosing a call learned through work | Imprisonment 2 months to 2 years | Penal Code Art. 580 |
| Non-employee opening a letter not addressed to them, or accessing a phone call by trickery | Fine up to LBP 100,000 | Penal Code Art. 581 |
| Processing personal data without required permit; unauthorized disclosure of processed personal data | Fine LBP 1,000,000-3,000,000 and/or imprisonment 3-36 months | Law No. 81/2018, Art. 106 |
What This Article Could Not Establish, and Where Care Is Needed
No Lebanese court decision on the admissibility of a secretly recorded conversation was located in civil, criminal or labour proceedings. No penalty provision within Law No. 140/1999 itself could be identified. No statute or regulation governing employer CCTV or workplace monitoring was found. The Official Gazette, the Ministry of Justice site and the Parliament site were all unreachable, so the interception law is described from institutional analysis rather than from the gazetted text.
Filming in public deserves a separate warning. During the 2019 protests, army personnel confiscated the phones of people who were recording, army intelligence officers assaulted people filming soldiers, and a journalist who refused an order to stop filming was attacked from behind by a security officer. None of that was enforcement of a recording statute. It is what happened anyway, and it is the more likely practical consequence of filming security forces during unrest.
Where no authority could be located, that is a statement about what is findable in public sources, not a conclusion that the conduct is permitted or prohibited. Anyone facing a specific situation should take advice from a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction.
This article provides general legal information about Lebanon, not legal advice. Information was verified as of July 27, 2026, drawing on the sources cited above; several primary Lebanese government sources could not be reached during research. Recording and privacy law in Lebanon involves unresolved questions, so readers should consult a lawyer licensed in Lebanon before recording a conversation or relying on any interpretation in this article.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Lebanon a one-party consent or all-party consent country for recording calls?
Neither label fits based on the law located for this article. The Penal Code articles most often cited for Lebanese recording law actually target telecom employees (Article 580) and non-employee third parties using trickery (Article 581), not a participant recording their own call. No statute or case law resolves the participant question directly, so Lebanon's rule should be treated as unclear rather than asserted as one-party or all-party.
Does Penal Code Article 579 make secret recording illegal in Lebanon?
No. Article 579 is a professional-secrecy offense that punishes doctors, lawyers, clergy, bankers and similar position-holders who disclose a secret they learned through their role. It does not address recording a conversation and should not be cited for that purpose, despite older summaries doing so.
Does Law No. 140/1999 apply to a private citizen recording their own conversation?
The law's structure, investigating-judge authorization, a separate ministerial track for terrorism and state-security cases, a two-month cap and a three-judge oversight commission, is built to regulate state and security-agency interception. No source located in this research applies it to private citizen-to-citizen recording.
Can I legally film police in Lebanon?
No statute specifically addressing this was located. Human Rights Watch documented Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces personnel confiscating phones and physically stopping people from filming during the 2019 protests, but that is documentation of conduct on the ground, not confirmation that a specific law authorizes or bans the practice.
What penalties exist under Lebanese law for illegally accessing someone else's communications?
Article 580 sets 2 months to 2 years imprisonment for a telecom employee who misuses their position, and Article 581 sets a fine up to LBP 100,000 for a non-employee who opens a letter or accesses a phone call by trickery. Separately, Law No. 81/2018 Article 106 sets a fine of LBP 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 and/or 3 to 36 months imprisonment for unauthorized data processing or disclosure.
Is there Lebanese case law on whether a secret recording can be used in court?
No Lebanese court decision on the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations was located in English or Arabic for this research. Readers should not assume either rule applies without confirming the current position with a lawyer licensed in Lebanon.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Sources and References
- Cyrilla's entry on Law No. 140/1999 states that domestic and international communications are protected from tapping, monitoring, interception or disclosure except as authorized by law.(cyrilla.org)
- Privacy International's country profile summarizes Law No. 140/1999's judicial-authorization procedure (Arts. 2-3) and the oversight commission (Art. 16), including reporting that oversight is largely symbolic.(privacyinternational.org)
- Human Rights Watch reporting describes Law No. 140/1999's administrative interception track (Art. 9), authorized by the Interior or Defense Minister with Prime Minister approval.(hrw.org)
- Verbatim Arabic text of the Lebanese Penal Code (Legislative Decree No. 340/1943), Articles 579, 580 and 581, used to correct the previous mischaracterization of these provisions.(genderiyya.xyz)
- DLA Piper's data protection law guide reports that Law No. 81/2018 applies consent selectively and provides no explicit statutory definition of consent.(dlapiperdataprotection.com)
- Global Voices reporting on Lebanese surveillance, including the absence of an independent data protection authority and the 2016 Beirut CCTV rollout.(globalvoices.org)
- A law-firm summary of Law No. 81/2018 Article 106's penalty for unauthorized data processing and disclosure.(caseguard.com)
- Human Rights Watch documentation of Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces personnel confiscating phones and attacking people filming during the October-November 2019 protests.(hrw.org)