Dijital Gözetimin Kavramsal ve Hukuki Çerçevesi: Yapay Zeka Destekli Gözetim Sistemlerinin Anayasal Sınırları

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yapay zeka teknolojilerinin dijital gözetim süreçlerinde artan kullanımı ile bu teknolojilerin bireysel haklar üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmektedir. Özellikle kamu güvenliği ve kamu hizmetlerinin etkin ve hızlı sunulması gibi gerekçelerle meşrulaştırılan dijital gözetim uygulamalarının, mahremiyet, haberleşme özgürlüğü ve kişisel veri güvenliği üzerindeki etki ve sonuçları incelenmektedir. Türkiye’de uygulanan Kent Güvenlik Sistemi (KGYS), sosyal medya denetimi ve biyometrik veri toplanması üzerinden ulusal ve uluslararası mevzuat karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM) ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) kararları ışığında “kanunilik”, “meşru amaç” ve “ölçülülük” ilkeleri çerçevesinde dijital gözetimin hukuki sınırları tartışılmıştır. Bu ilkeler temel hak ve özgürlüklere yapılacak müdahalelerin uygulamada hukuki sınırlarını oluşturmaktadır. Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) 2024 tarihinde yürürlüğe giren Yapay Zeka Tüzüğü ile Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin (ABD) güvenlik odaklı yaklaşımı karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmada, demokratik hukuk devletiyle uyum için açık yasal çerçeve, bağımsız denetim ve etkili başvuru yollarının güçlendirilmesi gerektiği vurgulanmıştır. Bu çalışma, normatif hukuk incelemesi, mahkeme kararları tahlili ve karşılaştırmalı hukuk yöntemi esas alınarak hazırlanmıştır.

Keywords

• anayasa
• anayasal haklar
• dijital gözetim
• yapay zeka
• siber güvenlik

Conceptual and Legal Framework of Digital Surveillance: Constitutional Boundaries of AI-Powered Surveillance Systems

Abstract

This study analyzes the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in digital surveillance processes and their impact on individual rights. It examines how digital surveillance practices—often justified by public safety and the need for efficient service delivery—affect privacy, freedom of communication, and personal data security. This paper compares national and international legal frameworks through practices such as Turkey’s Urban Security System, social media monitoring, and biometric systems. Within the context of rulings by the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, it discusses the legal boundaries of digital surveillance based on the principles of “legality,” “legitimate aim,” and “proportionality.” These principles, in practice, constitute the legal boundaries of interventions in fundamental rights and freedoms. It also compares the European Union’s 2024 AI Regulation with the United States’ security-oriented approach. The study emphasizes the need for a clear legal framework, independent oversight, and effective remedies to ensure that digital surveillance aligns with the principles of democratic rule of law. This research is based on normative legal analysis, court decisions, and comparative legal methods.

Keywords

• artificial intelligence
• constitutional rights
• constitution
• cybersecurity
• digital surveillance

References

1. Aksoy, İ. U. (2024). Yapay zekâ ve demokrasi. İçinde Yapay zekâ, toplum ve kültür (ss. 561–575). Ankara Üniversitesi.
2. Almeida, P. G. R. de, dos Santos, C. D., & Farias, J. S. (2021). Artificial intelligence regulation: A framework for governance. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(4), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09593-z
3. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2020). The dangers of face recognition technology. https://www.aclu.org/report/dangers-face-recognition-technology Erişim: 01.04.2025
4. Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and Machine Learning. fairmlbook.org. Erişim: 03.04.2025
5. BBC News Türkçe. (2023). Türkiye İçişleri Bakanı Soylu’dan “Kim” yüz tanıma uygulaması https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/cd1rmnrjggyo Erişim: 5.05. 2025).
6. Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008.
7. Comparitech. (2022). Surveillance States: A look at privacy and surveillance across the globe. Retrieved from https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/surveillance-states/ Erişim: 15.05.2025
8. Comparitech. (2024). The world's most surveilled cities. https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/ Erişim: 15.05.2025

9. Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf Erişim: 10.03.2025
10. Çiftçioğlu, C. T. (2012). Yaşama Hakkı. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, (103), 138–167.
11. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
12. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Brussels: COM(2021) 206 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0206 Erişim: 8.04.2025
13. CyberInsider. (2024). 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes, 14 Eyes – https://cyberinsider.com/5-eyes-9-eyes-14-eyes/ Erişim: 20.05.2025
14. Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao5580.
15. Federal Trade Commission. (2024). A Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services https://www.ftc.gov/reports/look-behind-screens-examining-data-practices-social-media-video-streaming-services Erişim: 20.05.2025
16. Gee, H. (2022). Bang! ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection Technology, Predictive Policing, and Measuring Terry’s Reach. Michigan Journal of Law Reform.
17. Greenwald, G. (2014). No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. New York: Metropolitan Books.
18. Gözler, K. (2019). Türk anayasa hukuku (3. baskı). Ekin Yayınevi.
19. Human Rights Watch. (2019). China’s algorithms of repression: Reverse engineering a Xinjiang police mass surveillance app. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/01/chinas-algorithms-repression/reverse-engineering-xinjiang-police-mass-surveillance Erişim: 10.04.2025
20. Hill, K. (2020, January 18). The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html Erişim: 18.05.2025
21. Karpa, D., & Rochlitz, M. (2024). Authoritarian surveillance and public support for digital governance solutions. Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241290208
22. Kaufmann, M. (2019). Predictive Policing and the Ethics of Preemption. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(2), 67–80.
23. Kitchin, R. (2014). The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences. SAGE Publications.
24. Lyon, D. (2013). Gözetim Toplumu. G. Ayas (Çev.). Sosyologca, 3(5), 77–90.
25. Lyon, D. (2018). The Culture of Surveillance: Watching as a Way of Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
26. Murray, D. (2016). “Surveillance, Technology and the ECHR: Unchecked Power?”, Cambridge Law Journal, 75(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197316000052
27. Fussey, P., & Murray, D. (2019). Mega-events and security: The politics of surveillance, security and policing. Routledge.
28. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2022). The right to privacy in the digital age: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
29. Oswald, M., Grace, J., Urwin, S., & Barnes, G. C. (2018). Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: Lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality. Information and Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 223–250.
30. Penney, J. W. (2022). Chilling Effects and the Supreme Court's Free Expression Jurisprudence. Minnesota Law Review, 107, 1455–1502.
31. Rautenberg, N., & Murray, D. (2024). Making tangible the long-term harm linked to the chilling effects of AI-enabled surveillance: Can human flourishing inform human rights? Human Rights Review, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-024-00727-6
32. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
33. Snowden, E. (2019). Permanent Record. Metropolitan Books. https://archive.org/details/edward-snowden-permanent-record-pdf Erişim: 19.04.2025
34. Suzor, N. (2018). Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 1–11.
35. Solove, D. J. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
36. Solove, D. J. (2022). Understanding Privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37. T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2021). Ulusal Yapay Zekâ Stratejisi (2021–2025).
38. The Guardian. (2025). Police live facial recognition cameras scan 4.7m faces in England and Wales. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/24/police-live-facial-recognition-cameras-england-and-wales Erişim: 30.05.2025
39. Vance, A., & Stone, B. (2011, November 22). Palantir: The war on terror’s secret weapon. Bloomberg Businessweek. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-22/palantir-the-war-on-terrors-secret-weapon Erişim: 13.04.2025
40. The Verge. (2025). New York City wants subway cameras to predict ‘trouble’ before it happens. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/news/658524/mta-ai-predictive-crime-new-york-subway-platforms Erişim: 16.05.2025
41. Završnik, A. (2020). Criminal Justice, Artificial Intelligence Systems, and Human Rights. ERA Forum, 20, 567–583.
42. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
43. West, S. M., Whittaker, M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating Systems: Gender, Race and Power in AI. AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/discriminatingsystems.pdf Erişim: 15.04.2025
44. Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.
45. Willems, D. (2014). CAS: Crime Anticipation System – Predictive Policing in Amsterdam [Conference presentation]. Mathematics of the Total Worker (MTW) 2014, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI), Amsterdam. https://event.cwi.nl/mtw2014/media/files/Willems,%20Dick%20-%20CAS%20Crime%20anticipation%20system%20_%20predicting%20policing%20in%20Amsterdam.pdf Erişim: 17.05.2025
46. Xu, Z. (2022). Human Judges in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 36(1), e2013652.
47. Yargı Kararları: Anayasa Mahkemesi. (2015). Tansel Çölaşan [B. No: 2014/6128] Karar (E. 2014/6128, K. 2014/14417). Kararlar Bilgi Bankası. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/6128
48. Anayasa Mahkemesi. (2017). A.K. [B. No: 2014/5552] kararı. Kararlar Bilgi Bankası. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/5552
49. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2018). H.K. ve Diğerleri [B. No: 2015/2738]. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2015/2738
50. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2018). Nurcan Belin [B. No: 2014/14187]. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/14187
51. Anayasa Mahkemesi. (2018). C.K. [B. No: 2014/19685] kararı. Kararlar Bilgi Bankası. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/19685 Anayasa Mahkemesi. (2019). M.E. [B. No: 2015/4041] kararı. Kararlar Bilgi Bankası. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2015/4041
52. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2020). E.Ü. [B. No: 2016/13010]. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2016/13010
53. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2020). A.A.Y. [B. No: 2016/13011]. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2016/13011
54. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2021). B.Y. [B. No: 2018/30296]. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2018/30296
55. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2022). Jülide Hansu Başvurusu (B. No: 2018/21380), Karar Tarihi: 3/11/2022, https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2018/21380
56. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM). (2008). S. ve Marper v. Birleşik Krallık, Başvuru No. 30562/04 ve 30566/04, 4 Aralık 2008 tarihli karar.
57. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Kruslin v. France, Başvuru No: 11801/85, Karar Tarihi: 24 Nisan 1990.
58. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Başvuru No: 54934/00, Karar Tarihi: 29 Haziran 2006.
59. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Zakharov v. Russia, No. 47143/06, Judgment of 04 December 2015.
60. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom, No. 58170/13 and others, Judgment of 25 May 2021.
61. Yasal Mevzuat: 6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu (KVKK). (2016). Resmî Gazete: 7 Nisan 2016, Sayı: 29677.
62. 5651 sayılı İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesi ve Bu Yayınlar Yoluyla İşlenen Suçlarla Mücadele Edilmesi Hakkında Kanun. (2007). Resmî Gazete: 23 Mayıs 2007, Sayı: 26530.
63. 7545 sayılı Siber Güvenlik Kanunu. (2025). Resmî Gazete: 19 Mart 2025, Sayı: 32846.