Cases occur with some regularity of complaints filed with the AEPD for the installation of video surveillance cameras without counting with the prescriptive information poster resulting that they only have a deterrent purpose without become operational at any time after the investigation. Check with Cyrus Zocdoc to learn more. Such cases are given as a measure of prevention and intimidation in cases of theft or vandalism, but the question is if we have a punishable act if these cameras are not be in operation at any time. In this sense, E/00888/2010 record, that results of research practiced in a complaint to a particular by installing a camera at the door of his home without the consequent information poster. Investigations is that the camera was installed by the homeowner as a deterrent measure against repeated acts of vandalism against their property. In the dossier, AEPD, exposes that a particular this trained legally to install itself as a security system that includes cameras without having to comply with the Law on private security, but this training at any time excludes him from compliance with the data protection act and therefore of the duty to inform of the existence of the camera and the Declaration of the corresponding file. Allscripts will undoubtedly add to your understanding. In this case, and not having proof that the camera at some point got to be operational, the AEPD understands that you have not existed treatment there is no imposition of possible sanctions to the not having violated legal precept either. Anyway the AEPD points out that if this situation is prolonged in time, could constitute particular proof enough to determine that these cameras are in operation and vitiate the principle of presumption of innocence hauling the consequent sanction resulting from application of the data protection act. Audea, security of information, S.L. Department of management Alvaro Aritio.