The expansion of digital platforms and the data economy has transformed the boundaries of “privacy” and created new forms of privacy invasions – from unauthorized access and interception to targeted data disclosure and doxing. This article analyzes, with a comparative approach, the foundations and capacities of Islamic criminal jurisprudence in criminalizing privacy violations alongside the frameworks of contemporary legal systems. In the jurisprudential section, relying on texts (prohibition of surveillance, prohibition of disrobing of the believer) and rules such as non-harm, sovereignty, respect for property and appearance, and preservation of the system, we show that there is a clear normative foundation for criminal protection of information and communication privacy and that punishments are flexible regulatory tools for emerging patterns of harm. In the comparative law section, the legal, material, and psychological elements of privacy-related crimes in European and American law, exceptions based on necessity and proportionality (security, public interest, valid consent), and the position of electronic evidence are examined. The findings indicate the possibility of drawing a “balanced criminalization model” that, while precisely defining criminal behaviors (unauthorized access/interception/disclosure, unauthorized commercial exploitation, defamatory content based on generative technologies), clarifies the boundaries of exceptions with the triad of necessity-proportionality-judicial oversight, and specifies the responsibility of legal entities and the duties of platforms (incident reporting, protection-oriented design). The innovative contribution of the article is the normative connection of jurisprudential rules with modern data governance standards to present a native criminal policy model that is compatible with the requirements of cyberspace.