
SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash - jamesjyu
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-helmet-cameras-in-wake-of-crash-4741338.php#photo-5057066
======
thrill
The SF Fire Chief needs to be invited to find a new job. All public servants
should be mandated to have video and audio recordings taken during their
interactions with the public. If the recordings are inappropriate for public
release then that's a different matter than trying to prevent their valuable
existence.

~~~
RyJones
In the recent "I am a Seattle cop, AMA" over in /r/seattle, the officer said:
"I'm torn on body cameras and confused about the public perception of them.
People really didn't want us to have a drone that could fly for 10 minutes but
they want us to bring cameras into their homes." [1]

I will admit that I am both pro-body cam and anti-drone, but I'd never thought
of it that way.

[1]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_off...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_officer_amaa/cbgxabt)

~~~
forrestthewoods
I don't want police officers in my home. However if police officers do come
into my home then I absolutely want them to have a body camera so they can be
held responsible for any actions they take.

~~~
RyJones
I agree on the first claim, but to the second, it is a two-edged sword. If the
police are in your home, they may or may not see anything interesting. If they
have video to play back, they may get a second chance to look for something
that they wouldn't have had.

I don't deny the benefit we seek, but there are risks, as well.

~~~
mayanksinghal
But shouldn't it be the case that if police is given a search warrant, we (as
people, in general) want them to notice anything and everything there is to
notice?

This is also something I would reply to your sibling comment as well, I think
many would prefer a footage of their state instead of a description of it from
a police officer who might be confused/distracted/filling-up-the-gaps. It is
both more objective and more just. Jury should be allowed to see as it was and
not just as it is displayed during the trial.

~~~
RyJones
I admit I wasn't thinking of search warrants. I was thinking of the times
where I've had police in my domicile, all of which were in response to calls
for assistance.

------
JshWright
I'd like to share my perspective as a firefighter...

This wasn't some officially sanctioned camera, there for the purpose of
accountability. It was a personal camera a firefighter had placed on his
helmet. My guess is, it was already in violation of department policy, and
only tacitly allowed (every department I know of has a policy against using
personal cameras on scenes). This is likely just a clarification that they
will now be enforcing this policy.

I'm shocked this policy wasn't enforced sooner. The number of HIPAA violations
that must have resulted from the use of these cameras must be staggering, and
I'm surprised they haven't been sued yet.

We're not law enforcement officers. We're not there with a warrant, we're
there to provide care and compassion. Shoving a camera in someone's face
without their consent is neither good 'care', nor is it compassionate.

~~~
zensavona
It's disappointing that most of the discussion on this post has entirely
missed this crucial fact, and assumes we are talking about mandated cameras.

------
borplk
Disgusting. The moment it's about exposing their fuck-ups they are all
suddenly concerned about everyone's privacy and rights and it becomes "fairly
clear".

If the camera is there to catch you, then it's good and you have no right or
reason to expect privacy.

But if it's about catching them, uh-oh!

~~~
JshWright
We've banned helmet cams for years. It's not about covering anything up, it's
about not getting sued for HIPAA violations.

I wear a GoPro at training events, but would never wear one on an actual
incident. We often show up in someone's most vulnerable moment. We're there to
provide care and compassion. Making a video recording of someone who is sick
or injured is neither necessary for their care, or compassionate.

~~~
reneherse
Your argument for compassion and respecting people's vulnerability when
providing general emergency services and fire fighting is a good one. I
wonder, however, if this case shows that there are different needs for
airports and responses to large scale disasters?

A crash site is a hugely complex and chaotic event; wouldn't it make sense to
have more data and awareness if that's what cameras can provide? Helmet cams,
truck cams could all provide additional data for investigators.

------
6d0debc071
You notice 'privacy' is only a concern when observation makes powerful people
look bad?

What a lying scumbag.

------
D9u

        "I think it is fairly clear," she said. "Without someone's permission, videos are not to be taken."
    

When will the same courtesy be applied to "We the People?"

------
kordless
Trust can only be established with transparency. The second we start hiding
things from each other, we have a real reason to distrust each other.

~~~
cafard
In general I trust my neighbors, but I don't object if they put down their
blinds. As far as I know they trust me, even though the blinds are down a fair
bit of the evening.

------
mdaniel
I could have sworn that the line was: you have nothing to fear if you're not
doing anything wrong.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

------
tnuc
How will stop them from running over more people?

~~~
axman6
Jesus christ, what is wrong with all you people? Somehow, firefighters in
america have become the bad guys? They fucked up in an incredibly difficuly
situation, and because of it, a young girl is dead. Do you have any idea how
traumatic this must be for the officers involved? This policy is not about "if
you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about", it's about
protecting the people who literally risk their lives for the rest of us;
protecting them and the families of those affected from public exposure of
horrific events such as these. If your daughter was killed in a horrific
accident like this, would you want video of the event and her mutilated corpse
shown to people around the world? I have a feeling most of you would not. And
the same would be said if you had been the person who was responsible for
killing them.

Clearly one, or several, people fucked up on the ground, and somehow this has
turned into a debate about how bureaucrats are trying to protect themselves
from "their fuckups". This had nothing to do with the bureaucrats, it has to
do with the men on the ground, and the whole situation is truly horrific for
them.

I'm all for police officers wearing cameras (at least in the US where abuses
of power seem to be the norm), but I am also vehemently against the idea that
emergency service officers should be subjected to the same treatment. Their
job is incredibly difficult and dangerous. Sometimes mistakes happen, and
sometimes those mistakes are incredibly regretful, but I feel that these
officers being forced to fear every action they make will mean they cannot do
their job effectively. We do not live in a society where we can expect 100%
perfection 100% of the time, form anyone at all. I would rather have
firefighters who occasionally screw up, than none at all.

The sentiment in these comments has I find deeply disturbing, and completely
misdirected, and I feel that many of the commenters here should stop and think
about who is most affected by their statements. I'd hate to be one of the
officers involved, and then to see the sort of crap that's been said here.

~~~
JshWright
Firefighters aren't generally called 'officers' (I agree wholeheartedly with
your point though).

------
cmapes
"Why yes, I shall protect myself and others who work for the public from
accountability by banning cameras that document our work."

Perfect, you can just watch the culture trickle spread from the Federal
Government to the local ones.

------
Zigurd
This is incredibly tone-deaf in light of recently released results that show
huge benefits from police wearing body cams.

~~~
JshWright
Firefighters are not cops. I'm fully in support of cops wearing recording
devices. I think firefighters/paramedics wearing recording devices is a bad
idea (speaking as the latter).

There are plenty of reasons, but I'll list a couple: -This would generate
_huge_ amounts of HIPAA protected data, that would be a nightmare to keep and
protect. -There are plenty of occasions where I need someone to be honest with
me, without fear of legal repercussions (i.e. what drugs did you take?). A
camera in their face is going to make them a lot less likely to answer
truthfully. -People call us at their most vulnerable. If someone is sick or
injured, the last thing they need is a camera in their face.

I don't think there's a widespread lack of accountability in Fire/EMS.
Obviously there are issues, but they are generally handled well. There's no
'thin blue line' effect. If I screw up to the point of negligence, my career
is over, I face a hefty fine, and potentially significant civil lawsuits.

~~~
Zigurd
Once the police get past the first order effects where cameras encourage both
the cops and the people they deal with to de-escalate confrontations, I think
they will keep wearing body cams in order to study safety and effectiveness,
even though you could say much the same about confidentiality in some
situations.

For that matter, if I'm in a hospital I would want a camera recording my room
24/7 to record, for example, whether a nurse washed their hands before
handling something that could get me a nasty infection, especially if I am
incapacitated.

