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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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!
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.
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.
To get at fire inside the aircraft, positioning near the aircraft is necessary. They are going to have to move around.
The real issue is why a girl was left lying on the tarmac by first responders. The general rule is RECEO
Rescue - get any people to safety, first-aid as needed
Exposures - secure/protect any nearby structures or other risks
Confinment - prevent the spread of the fire, limit it's growth
Extinguish - put out the fire
Overhaul - go over the scene to ensure no remaining embers/restart risk, begin investigation
You did these things in this order, back in the day. Someone in need of rescue preempted putting out a fire. So, I would have expected a body on the ground to get priority attention. Someone(s) should have had her on a stretcher and away from the scene as quickly as possible, or at least posted a person to ensure she didn't come to further harm in the melee. Off-hand, it seems the excitement of the fire got priority. After she was covered in foam, it was near inevitable she'd get hit by something moving around the scene.
But firefighting rules have changed over the years, so what do i know. Wait for the investigation, then decide whether to get angry or not.
"dead" people are dead when a doctor says so, otherwise, CPR continues. There are extreme cases, where someone is obviously dead, but if there is any doubt, CPR continues. If you can't tell whether she needs CPR or not, she is alive, and her need for first aid is first priority.
Sorry, this thing has me a little pissed. I did firefighting for a while, and the more I read or think about this, the sloppier it looks, and the angrier I get.