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.'"

Yeah, this is a cliche

[Cro Magnon]

If you don't have anything to hide, why are you against cameras?

They changed their minds

[hawguy]

They (partially) backtracked and may allow cameras:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php [sfgate.com]

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.

This news is already out of date:

[cryptomancer]

"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 [sfgate.com]

Re:I get to bust this one out again.

[cdrudge]

Under HIPPA, such video recording is not illegal. However it must be treated as protected patient information if the patient can be identified from the video. It is what happens to that video that can land the person responsible in legal hot water.

Re:I get to bust this one out again.

[thomst]

jtownatpun.net snarled:

The only reason you could want to ban cameras is to hide your mistakes.

Yep. And that that's the reason behind the imbecile SF Fire Chief's ban is so obvious that she's already walking it back [sfgate.com].

Can you say "Streisand Effect", anybody?"

Re:Hah

[icebike]

Since when is having a camera for private recording a privacy issue? It's the stupid act of sharing those images publicly that they should be worried about.

The wearer was a a public official performing his public duty, and even if it was his own camera, documentation of the event would immediately become evidence once the coroner determines the girl was alive when run-over. Withholding or destroying evidence is also a crime.

Also there is nothing in the story saying it was a private recording. Its likely the fire department purchased the cams.

Re:Why not ban bad driving

[coyote_oww]

"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.