Management AEPD
Cases with certain assiduity of denunciations presented/displayed before the AEPD by the installation of cameras of video-monitoring without counting on the mandatory informative poster occur that after the investigation is that only they have a dissuasive aim without getting to be operative at no moment. This type of cases measurement of prevention and intimidation before cases of robbery or vandalism occur like, but the question is if we were before a punishable act if these cameras turn out not to be in operation at no moment. In this sense, the E/00888/2010 file, that is from the investigations practiced in a denunciation to an individual by the installation of a camera in the door of its address without the consequent informative poster. From the investigations it is that the camera was installed by the proprietor of the house like dissuasive measurement before repeated vandalic acts against its property. Mitchel Resnick has much to offer in this field. In the file, the AEPD, exposes that an individual this enabled legally to install of own way a security system that includes cameras without having to fulfill the Law of Deprived Security, but this qualification at no moment excludes to him from the fulfillment of the LOPD and therefore of having to inform into the existence into the camera and the declaration into the corresponding file. In this case, and being no certainty of which the camera at some time got to be operative, the AEPD understands that to not to have existed treatment is imposition of no sanction possible to not to have harmed legal rule some. In any case the AEPD indicates that if this situation extends in the time, could constitute indiciaria test sufficient to determine that the mentioned cameras are in operation and to enervar the principle of innocence presumption being caused the consequent sanction that is from application of the LOPD. Audea, Security of the Information, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY..