The law changes would ban things like drones being used to overhear private conversations, watch a private activity or track a person's movements, as well as the use of smartphones, fitness trackers and geo-tagging to collect data information unless it was in the person's "lawful interest". But government agencies, like the police, would be exempt.

The proposed move has been hailed as "long overdue" by a leading privacy expert, who says the ACT's surveillance laws are "grossly insufficient", and an update is well overdue.

Justice and Consumer Affairs Minister Shane Rattenbury is calling for community feedback into a review that seeks to restrict non-government uses of cameras, tracking devices or other data gathering methods targeted at individuals.

The review seeks to rename the ACT Listening Devices Act (which makes it an offence to listen or record to private conversations) the Surveillance Act, and broaden the offences to make video surveillance and electronic monitoring illegal unless it is in the person's "lawful interest".

Defining a person's lawful interests requires evaluating the purpose of the surveillance and whether it is necessary, the review states. Guidelines for determining this have not been established yet.

Mr Rattenbury said the laws would make it an offence to intentionally record video of someone without their consent, and could include intentional or unlawful sharing video footage.

But he said legislation would have to be carefully crafted to ensure that inadvertent or legitimate surveillance was not criminalised.

"Key issues that are being considered include when a person can be taken to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and in what types of circumstances that surveillance might be appropriate, such as in monitoring personal property or tracking the whereabouts of a person's car or in the course of responsible journalism," he said.

Privacy fears around increasingly popular drones have been in the spotlight in recent years.

But the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's rules about the flying robots are more about aviation safety than privacy.

The Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recently investigated some of these fears, such as animal protection groups using drones to observe agricultural facilities without permission.

Privacy and surveillance expert Bruce Arnold said if the ACT put in place the recommendation to introduce a statutory tort, it would be the first state to allow victims to sue over general privacy intrusions.

Mr Arnold, who is an assistant professor of law at the University of Canberra, said the ACT government's proposed legislation was "absolutely necessary" and would allow the ACT catch up with other states, including NSW.

"It is very heartening that the government has at last come to grips with technology that has been used since the 1990s," he said.

The new laws would protect people from being bugged, filmed, or photographed without permission.

"Probably about two to three times a month I get someone ringing up saying they are worried that someone is spying on them. One person was so worried they whacked a drone away with a hockey stick," he said.

"The broad principle in Australian law is if you can be seen from the street or overhead, then basically you have no protection."

He denied that increased regulation was turning the country into a "nanny state," and stressed the need for a national privacy regime with legislation that could keep up with new technologies.