Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Fire Chief Bans Helmet-Mounted Cameras For Firefighters
New submitter niftymitch sends this quote from an article at SFGate:
"San Francisco's fire chief has explicitly banned firefighters from using helmet-mounted video cameras after images from a battalion chief's Asiana Airlines crash recording became public and led to questions about first responders' actions leading up to a fire rig running over a survivor. ... Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy, Hayes-White said, trumping whatever benefit came from knowing what the footage shows. 'There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount, of greater importance than having a video,' Hayes-White said. Critics, including some within the department, questioned the chief's order and its timing — coming as Johnson's footage raised the possibility of Fire Department liability in the death of 16-year-old Ye Meng Yuan. .. [Battalion Chief Kevin Smith, president of the employee group that includes Johnson, said,] 'The department seems more concerned with exposure and liability than training and improving efficiency. Helmet cams are the wave of the future - they can be used to improve communication at incidents between firefighters and commanders.'"
Since when did government care about the right to privacy?
sudo make me a sandwich
This is all about not creating evidence that could cost the government money.
No, you don't understand. The people have privacy, not government officials acting in their official capacity. The firefighter has no expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties. This camera ban seems like an attempt to jump on the wave of NSA hate in order to provide cover for future incompetence.
fire trucks too. Seeing as how when a modern rig is used improperly, people can get hurt.
... the NSA is pushing for those cameras to be required and the data provided to the NSA. The NSA swears the footage recorded is absolutely necessary to better understand terrorist threats and stop the next 911.
If privacy is what matters, then require that any firefighter with a camera keep the memory locked in a secure location at the station. Simply banning the cameras, especially after this incident, requires that they don't want to be subject to turning over any evidence. It's class CYA, plain and simple. I don't know who has the power to argue against this. These guys are union; but the union reps can surely see that such things might be used against them as well. They'll probably go along with the ban. The politicians are paid by the unions. Nobody really stands for the people here the way I see it. The people would, IMHO, best be served by having as much information as possible provided that it's properly secured, which is really not that hard to do.
Back-to-back World War champs! Suck it, Eurotards!
America! Fuck yeah!
Fuck you, you fucking fucks!
The only reason you could want to ban cameras is to hide your mistakes. You have no expectation of privacy in public, especially when you're working to protect and serve the public. If anything, this shows why cameras should be MANDATORY . With cameras on every responder and 360 degrees of coverage from the top of every vehicle. If you screw up, you need to know it, determine liability, see what led to the mistake(s), and develop ways to avoid screwing up like that in the future.
SF's fire chief needs a swift kick in the groin.
If you don't have anything to hide, why are you against cameras?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Funny how only the privacy of policemen and firefighters seems to get serious consideration, while the rest of us can eat shit.
It's especially ironic when the cops do it.
They (partially) backtracked and may allow cameras:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php
In an apparent about-face, San Francisco Fire Department officials said Monday they will revisit restrictions on firefighters' use of helmet-mounted cameras after concluding that footage from the Asiana Airlines crash showed the value of the devices.
HAHA - the victim family sue the ass off the city of San Francisco, so now they have to banned the head cam?
"In an apparent about-face, San Francisco Fire Department officials said Monday they will revisit restrictions on firefighters' use of helmet-mounted cameras after concluding that footage from the Asiana Airlines crash showed the value of the devices."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
They are "rethinking"...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php
"There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount" - Joanne Hayes-White
Joanne Hayes-White and James Clapper should trade jobs.
For their protection and ours.
Police more than firemen obviously.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
laws for government:
smashed your hard drives?
We protected public from chinese data theft!
cell phone stolen by cops while recording cops?
We need it for evidence!
no manslaughter charges for fire chief throttle spaz?
We need to protect your privacy and ours!
laws for citizens
intentionally smashed someones hard drives?
felony assault/reckless endangerment
stolen cell phone left at bar (Apple/Engadget fiasco)?
theft of lost property.
ran over someone at accident scene?
vehicular manslaughter
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Not (Go)Pro anymore...
I really don't want a camera strapped to my fireman's helmet, thank you very much. What?
Here's an idea: require a helmet cam and a voice recording for the POTUS. 30 years after the person left office, make all recordings public. That's enough time for the secrets, but it will then let people and historians judge the POTUS.
Local news coverage had this yesterday. They were also clear to say that the ban was already in effect and that all the chief did was reiterate the existing ban that apparently some of the firefighters had been ignoring.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras.
Doesn't it seem odd that while they're adding more cameras in the streets and using surveillance drones that they're also banning helmet cams? When will they start banning individual business security cameras-- when a police or fire or other government "mistake" is recorded by them? Welcome to the modern age, cameras are ubiquitous. If ANYTHING ought to be continuously recorded on video for posterity, it's GOVERNMENTAL activities.
Whair deFyre
Safe T. First
Hook N. Ladda
It's true! I saw it on KTVU news!
It would be more effective to ban stupid things like driving through the debris field.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy, ...
Since when are a firefighter's (or Police) actions done in the commission of their duties, especially in a public setting, private? Furthermore, since when are the victim's (or anyone's) public setting actions/circumstances private?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
when they say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" only applies to us private citizens. What's good for the goosed is not, they're arguing good for their gander, and so ironically, they want to hide behind "privacy".
We must respect the privacy of the girl who was run over by the fire truck, (or future victims like her, more to the point) by NOT recording events that could facilitate knowing how she died, or how to prevent other such tragedies in the future. Apparently her 'right to privacy' trumps the right of society for justice, or government accountability, (including government employees).
By this same piss-poor argument, I'm sure a number of people in the LAPD wished someone had respected Rodney King's PRIVACY by not videotaping his brutal beating and (let's face fact, folks,) attempted murder by LAPD thugs... how much better things would be not only for Rodney King, (who would consequently have been denied justice... oh, wait...) but no one would even know the full extent of what happened unless they happened to be there personally.
Someone please make sure whoever is San Francisco's fire chief's boss hears this argument, or THAT person's boss, etc., that this is just a step in the direction of banning video footage being taken AT ALL, with the attendant even free-er reign on the part of government and their employees to misbehave while being paid to do what for want of a better word, let's just call THEIR JOBS.
Firefighters have enough equipment to do their job, they don't need additional stuff to get in the way. Also, a camera would require a battery and running into a burning building with a battery is not wise. They should have cameras as a tool, to use where needed. I would say having one required on the clothing is stupid.
The last thing I want to see is some "lol cool" video of firefighters trudging through the burning ruins of my life. I think it's bad enough that 911 calls are made public. Those calls are made in desperate, personal times in a victim's life and they get turned into reality tv for the Nancy Grace's of the media. No need to add video to the soundtrack of my life in flames.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Seven FOIA requests and a wad of cash, and I was able to see my autistic son being abused by government employees.
I am grateful for the cameras.
I really don't want a camera strapped to my fireman's helmet, thank you very much. What?
fine.
How about the police officer's?
Or the Indian Chief's "bonnet"?
Having a hard time coming up with a suitable double entendre for the Navy guy, so I'll just throw in the phrase "able bodied seaman" for no good reason.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Public Servants in the performance of their duties in public should not expect privacy and indeed should expect that their behavior, demeanor and performance is subject to the public's scrutiny.
by Upton Sinclair applies here:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Is that a KTVU confirmed driver's name? :D
As others have pointed out, the original story is very out-of-date and ignores the fact that the policy has been in-place for a long time.
Privacy vs. public access is not completely black and white. Just a few issues that could be reasonably debated (not on the Interwebs, of course, where no reasonable debate occurs) are:
Should firefighters be rescuing people and fighting fires or d*cking around with their GoPro to get cool Youtube videos?
As medical responders, what about HIPPA? Does a person have the right to call for help secure in the knowledge that the rescuer won't be spreading helmet-cam footage of their nude mangled body across the Internet or news?
I see some similar issues with radio traffic and release of 911 recordings. While I enjoy checking the local goings-on with a scanner I wonder if "...respond to 1234 Main Apartment 3 for a 34 year old female suicide attempt via overdose..." is broadcasting just a bit too much personal medical info.
And don't get me started on search-warrants. The cops *love* to issue press-releases about all the stuff they have recovered even though nobody has been charged or convicted. A couple bricks of .22, a Playboy and the pills from your doctor are "drugs, pornography and thousands of rounds of ammunition" by the time it hits the blotter. It just a bit too much power to smear someone's reputation without trial for my taste.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
When I worked for a municipal department in Texas, we had policies concerning any and all video shot while on duty. First of all, cameras were to be carried by fire trucks. Whether they were helmet-mounted or not was actually kind of a silly question. Second, all photos or videos shot with during incidents had to be reviewed by officers before it could be used for any purpose. Third, and most importantly, it doesn't matter how many years you have been in the service, you keep yourself acutely aware of any cameras in your vicinity and ensure that you only do what you would not be embarrassed to see on the news tonight.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Any victim of a fire or other incident to which fire or ems respond are automatically protected by HIPPA. Posting of any video to the public would violate said patients' HIPPA rights.
No augmented reality for you my son.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
helmet cams are being banned only because they could not cover up the fact that a fire truck ran over a girl. since there was proof of what happened, they could not lie out of it thus preventing a possible lawsuit.
I'm as confused as the next guy with all the conflicting news reports about this:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php
Because as long as the publicly released footage only show brave firefighters saving members of the public its a "great tool", but as soon as they show mistakes/incompetence they are "a threat to privacy". Seems kind of like law enforcements mentality in regards to dash cam (and probably future badge-cam) footage, if it shows police in a good light it ends up on dozens of "caught on tape" style shows, but if the footage is of officers threatening to kill members of the public, shooting people in the back, conspiracy to frame people for assault or other misdeeds its far less likely to see the light of day.
its like those dumbass laws banning law enforcement cameras
fine i broke that law, pass another one.
you get to be a youtube star.
Like so many things, the answer is Tort Reform.
Mistakes are going to happen, particularly in things as chaotic as emergency response. We need to accept that and not end careers and bankrupt organizations with enormous payouts when they do. It cripples our ability to get things done if you're always second guessing each decision based on how some lawyer may twist it for a sympathetic plaintiff.
There are two types of blindness.
Blind by eyesight.
Blind by intellect.
You can help the former but not the latter. SFO Fire chief is intellectually blind ,devoid of leadership and honor. Suggest early retirement for the sake of SFO.
Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy,
The wheels crushing them to death violated their right to life before their right to privacy was violated. The only way their survivors can defend the deceased's right to life is by violating their right to privacy. So it looks like a good tradeoff, so long as you aren't a fire chief covering up for departmental misdeeds.
Learn to love Alaska
Next thing you know, consumer dash cams will be illegal because they violate cops privacy.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy,
I would like to hear him explain how a public employee out in public doing their duty for the benefit of the public while being paid by the public is not subject to public scrutiny?
What, do I have to avert my eyes from firefighters while they are doing their job?
They have been caught trying to cover their asses, and now are backtracking on their self-serving decision:
. http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php
In an apparent about-face, San Francisco Fire Department officials said Monday they will revisit restrictions on firefighters' use of helmet-mounted cameras after concluding that footage from the Asiana Airlines crash showed the value of the devices.
Hayes-White said Friday that helmet cameras were covered by a 2009 ban on video cameras "in any department facility."
I didn't realize that San Francisco International Airport qualified as a fire department facility.
This is especially weird for two reasons directly associated with the Asiana crash:
1) The department has generally been lauded for being upfront and honest about having run over the girl. It's weird that the takeaway from that is to do something which appears to be just "cover your ass".
2) I haven't seen the video, but by the accounts I've read the video corroborates the claim that running over the girl really was just a tragic accident. It's weird that in the future they want to avoid having corroborating evidence like that.
The reasons for banning them are exactly why they need to be made mandatory.
The Press is chiding the Fire Department for not allowing Helmet Cameras. They claim the department and the public would benefit from the Helmet Cameras. They fail to mention that they, the press, also benefit, especially if something dramatic (some injury or death) is recorded.
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
There is no expectation of privacy for public officials or public employees in the performance of their duties. Nor is there an expectation of privacy for anyone when they are in a place accessible to the public. Nobody's privacy rights were violated.
officials would take more care of privacy in other situations as well.
A lot of comments are comparing this to police wearing cameras and while they're both public servants, the situations are very different. Why? Because the majority (if not all) cameras on firefighters (FF's) helmets are owned by the FF. I've not heard of a dept that is actually buying and distributing these. TFA mentions that 2 other big FD's have banned them and the SFFD implicitly banned them in 2009 when all cameras were banned from fire stations.
There has been mild controversy in the fire service over the use of these cameras, mostly related to auto accidents where FF's are likely to see injured or deceased victims.
While these videos can serve a very useful training purpose (and buff privileges), the victim's privacy is obviously a concern. And since the cameras are privately owned, the govt. can't ban them once they've been recorded, but they can ban FF's from using them while carrying out their duties.
Emergency services have a social contract with the general public that isn't examined too often. It's something that isn't taught to recruit classes, but it definitely should be. In exchange for the privilege of being a FF, we agree to help the public (some of us even get paid to do it). What's not clearly defined is whether or not the FF's should serve the public as best as we can. While it seems simple, many FF's succumb to the "good enough" mentality and don't actively seek improvement. The public puts a lot of trust in the emergency services and it only takes small mistakes to damage that trust.
Disclaimer: I am a volunteer FF and I design fire apparatus for a living.
Secondary Disclaimer: The amount of chrome on a fire truck does not improve the fire suppression abilities.
When they are incompetent enough to crush a plane crash victim to
death beneath the wheels of a "rescue" vehicle, they have PROVEN
they NEED TO BE OVERSEEN.
Fuck anyone who claims otherwise.
Maybe they can destroy all the camera's so the posted footage won't be there anymore? It seemed to work in the UK where they destroyed Edward Snowden's hard disks in order to remove the data from the internet....
You could get it with a request under the CPRA, most likely. How is it not a public record?
A relative is a mid-level commander who came up from rank-and-file and we talked about this very subject a few weeks ago. His department bans helmet cameras, and it's a policy he said he agrees with strongly.
As part of their job, they interact with people in deeply intimate, traumatic, personal moments and events. They have no right to turn that event into a spectacle for YouTube, and privacy laws *do* apply here if medical aide is rendered, in addition to the ethical side of things. Firefighters, like doctors, often need the truth for their own protection or to save lives. Example: they don't care if you were cooking meth from a legal standpoint, they care about the toxic chemicals in your on-fire house. How do you think "Hey, we need to know: you making meth here?" will be answered with a camera on the FF's head?
Firefighters respond to many medical calls to speed response and/or assist with entry if the ambulance crew need it. What happens when a firefighter responds to a domestic violence incident and the victim sees a blinking camera in their face?
You need a swift kick in the groin for thinking that you have any right to be "virtually" present during those moments. Next time you need emergency services, I want you to think "Do I want a camera shoved in my face and this broadcast on youtube?"
Please help metamoderate.
Don't worry - they already have it.