SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

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.

Chief Joanne Hayes-White said she issued the order after discovering that Battalion Chief Mark Johnson's helmet camera filmed the aftermath of the July 6 crash at San Francisco International Airport. Still images from the footage were published in The Chronicle.

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.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-helmet-cameras-in-wake-of-crash-4741338.php

[jtuck004]

1. Evidence bad. Secrecy good. n/t

[Helen Borg]

2. I don't get the rationale at all.

There are plenty of cameras everywhere. They capture plenty of footage that violates people's privacy, in the hope of recording information that may be useful to solve crimes, or of deterring crime. How is this so different? The problem here is that the footage was made public, not the footage itself. The cameras should be required to ensure proper operations by the firefighters and to document things as it was done in this case so that problems can be corrected.

[Chemisse]

3. Exactly. Rather than banning the cameras, how about saying you can't make it public?

[BumRushDaShow]

4. But if the images aren't made "public"

then a whole cadre of folks will yell - ""TRANSPARENCY NOW!!!!11!!!!! IT'S NOT 'TRANSPARENT'"!!!!11!1!1!1!! *



* [font size="1"](P.S. Alot of debate needs to happen regarding the types of issues such as this, that have arisen due to the march of technology)[/font]

[kelliekat44]

13. Law suits and insurance is what it's all about. Money trumps everything in the US. nt

[leftyohiolib]

5. "There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount, of greater importance than having a

a video," Hayes-White said.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Video documentation is very difficult...

... to refute and can facilitate proving wrongful or negligent conduct where it might otherwise have been impossible, and this is why they are banning the helmet cam -- they don't want to be sued by someone using the SF Fire Department's helmet cam video to prove their case. The "privacy of individuals" excuse is pure BS.

[Chemisse]

7. Spot on. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

8. Why do firefighters have privacy when they are doing their job?

And victims have their privacy invaded how?

By the same logic the videos of police stops can't be made either.

[mike dub]

9. I think Chief Hayes-White is stretching it, but

she might be inferring that survivors become medical "patients" immediately after an accident. If that's even loosely the case, then federal patient privacy laws ( HIPAA) could come into play.

I personally think the first job at an accident scene is help survivors and NOT worry about laws... but maybe federal privacy law is what Chief Hayes-White is worried about.

First response is NOT hospital-based care by any stretch but I work in the medical profession and HIPAA is paramount basically from the moment EMT's or doctors begin treatment. Videotaping of any "patient" in the U.S. in any form or fashion is strictly prohibited without their consent.

Splitting hairs here, but my two cents.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. HIPAA (for Fire/EMS) applies to what to say/write when generating a PCR (Patient Care Report).

Care needs to be exercised when obtaining a person's name, SSN and medical information. When in public places care should be taken to minimize its exposure, without jeopardizing the care to the patient.

What this is trying to cover are shielding the actions of the Fire/EMS personnel's actions.

That is quite different.

===

On a side HIPAA note:

ANYTHING you provide your Kid's school IS NOT protected under HIPAA and is classified as Quasi-Public knowledge. Elementary and secondary schools ARE NOT HIPAA covered entities or maintains health records as "educational records... not protected by HIPAA.

The less you give your school nurse about patient or family history, the better.

[Octafish]

10. Violating privacy?

The airport runway is a public place and firefighters doing rescue work is a government action. The people who are there are part of the public scene -- victim, responder, or Fire Chief.

[mike dub]

12. Again, I come from a medical background...

and work with patient privacy every moment I'm at work. And I'm merely wondering if the Chief is thinking of patient-privacy laws.

But I heartily agree with you on public place and government action (AND anything recorded by public agency (police, fire/rescue) is subject to sunshine).

[valerief]

11. Ban only protects the guilty. nt

[warrant46]

14. Privacy ?

"There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount, of greater importance than having a video," Hayes-White said.

Guess this Clown never thought about phones and other intrusive surveillance

[Brickbat]

15. I support cams recording workers as long as the managers have them too.

[XemaSab]

16. We got caught doing something dumb

and we want to make sure we never get caught doing dumb things again.