Video Surveillance Cams intimidating Purposes

There are cases with some regularity of complaints filed with the AEPD by installing video surveillance cameras without the required information sign that after the research are that only have a deterrent purpose without becoming operational in no time.

Such cases are given as a preventive measure and intimidation in cases of theft or vandalism, but the question is whether we are dealing with an act punishable if these cameras are not in operation at any time.

In this sense, the record E/00888/2010, resulting from the investigations carried out in a complaint to an individual by the installation of a camera at the door of his home without the subsequent posters. Of research is that the camera was installed by the homeowner as a deterrent to repeated acts of vandalism against their property. In the file, the AEPD, states that an individual is legally able to install its own way a security system that includes cameras without having to comply with the Private Security Act, but this training at no time excluded from compliance with the Data Protection Act and therefore the duty to report the existence of the camera and the declaration of the corresponding file.

In this case, and there being no proof that the camera at some point will become operational, the AEPD understand that by not having existed no treatment possible imposition of sanctions in the absence of any legal provision violated. Anyway, the AEPD said that if this situation continues over time, 'may constitute circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that those cameras are in operation and weaken the presumption of innocence' carrying the resulting penalty resulting from application of the Data Protection Act.