Datu valsts inspekcija/Data State Inspectorate of Latvia publishes guidance on CCTV.
Part 1 dealt with large scale surveillance (see here:Part 2 deals with CCTV in private spaces:

🔹️ Private spaces are considered to be those in which visitors expect a high level of protection of their privacy. Their surveillance can be considered an interference with the rights of visitors
🔹️ An exception to such processing may be situations where the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of a person, or the life and health of the person. For example, a camera may be installed in a hospital changing room where patients undress before an examination if it is usually used by patients whose health condition may suddenly deteriorate. In such a case, the camera in the changing room could be installed with a narrow angle and low image resolution, capturing only movement or lack of movement, in order to respond immediately if the patient needs help.
🔹️ Even if an organization informs that video surveillance is being conducted in a particular place, this does not mean that people's expectations of privacy are being met
🔹The prohibition on conducting surveillance of such premises is not changed by the fact that the organization plans to place the cameras at an angle that monitors relatively more neutral areas of the room ( for example, in a restroom, the cameras are directed only at the sinks, but not at the toilet cubicles ).
🔹️ If an organization determines that surveillance of such premises is necessary to ensure its interests, it should seek alternative means that could provide a similar result without excessively interfering with the privacy of individuals. For example, in cases where an organization wants to record people who have committed illegal acts in one of such premises, it can install a camera outside, for example in the hallway next to this room

Pic by ChatGPT