SFD bans helmet cameras after filming the truck running over a crash victim

[MillCreek]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130818/NEWS02/708189889#After-airliner-crash-S.F.-chief-bans-helmet-cams

As a risk manager, I am of the opinion that this sort of video is usually more helpful than harmful in liability situations.  I have no problem with the concept of helmet cams, dash cams, cameras worn by police, people filming the birth of their baby, etc.  As long as you respect the privacy issues and personal preference (for example, many hospital staff refuse to be filmed), my experience has been that the video can often be of benefit if things go wrong and a subsequent claim is filed.

[Tallpine]

She must have great faith in the training and effectiveness of her FD 

[Levant]

This shows clear intent to deceive the public.  THey weren't concerned about privacy before running over a crash victim.  Without a camera, they would certainly have lied about this case, too.  In fact, they told a different story until the camera video was requested.  We can't be sure if it was because they truly didn't know the story or if they didn't know they couldn't suppress the video.

This is one of the most blatant abuses of government I have heard in a long time.  If government truly believes that privacy counts more than video I suppose we won't be seeing those drones in the USA after all.

[AJ Dual]

People have rights, such as a "right to privacy".

Governments, as often pointed out in debates about Constitutional and Federal/State issues have powers. Governments do not have "rights".

Government powers may dictate the ability to have secrecy and security in certain circumstances, but the .gov does not have a right to privacy.

[Monkeyleg]

Does the fire department run over victims so often that the cameras are a problem?

[AJ Dual]

I guess we need victim cams. Spool the last 12 hours in a loop, 3-4G upload service, to Dropbox, maybe somewhere overseas that's at least somewhat NSA-proof, and a copy to your retained attorney.

Take the whole "Every Russian has a dashcam" concept right to the next level and get it over with. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

*snort*
First responders and EMTs are already privy to sensitive personal information. The privacy issue would be how the data collected (regardless of medium) was disseminated, not that it was collected in the first place.

It's a BS excuse to hide screw ups. The really annoying part isn't so much that they want to hide screws ups, but rather how pathetically obvious the lie is.

[Tallpine]

*snort*
First responders and EMTs are already privy to sensitive personal information. The privacy issue would be how the data collected (regardless of medium) was disseminated, not that it was collected in the first place.

It's a BS excuse to hide screw ups. The really annoying part isn't so much that they want to hide screws ups, but rather how pathetically obvious the lie is.

You can fool most of the people most of the time 

[HankB]

The fire chief said "There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount, of greater importance than having a video."

OK that's the fire department . . . . but if government is REALLY concerned about a person's privacy, then shouldn't the police stop taking and releasing mug shots as well?

No, this is an embarassingly transparent ploy to prevent evidence of mistakes from being gathered.

[230RN]

There is something in the water out there.  Kills any sense of reality.  Makes jerks out of people.

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.

[Angel Eyes]

Update: the SFFD is back-pedaling, sort-of.  Officials say the department will "revisit" the issue.

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

[Scout26]

Sadly most of what gets classified today is not "The XM-2954 round can penetrate Y millimeters of armor and if the Rooskies/Chinese/Norks find out they just add Y+1 millimeters of armor to their tanks."  99.99999% of what gets classified is "Wow, can't let this get out, it'll be embarrassing." Or "Oh *expletive deleted*it, I might go to jail for this screwup."

[Levant]

Sadly most of what gets classified today is not "The XM-2954 round can penetrate Y millimeters of armor and if the Rooskies/Chinese/Norks find out they just add Y+1 millimeters of armor to their tanks."  99.99999% of what gets classified is "Wow, can't let this get out, it'll be embarrassing." Or "Oh *expletive deleted*, I might go to jail for this screwup."

Governments have always kept secrets from those that they believe to be their enemies.  Why do you think they keep so many from us?

[Balog]

Sadly most of what gets classified today is not "The XM-2954 round can penetrate Y millimeters of armor and if the Rooskies/Chinese/Norks find out they just add Y+1 millimeters of armor to their tanks."  99.99999% of what gets classified is "Wow, can't let this get out, it'll be embarrassing." Or "Oh *expletive deleted*, I might go to jail for this screwup."

I used to think the majority of TS stuff was classified to cover up incompetence or low level corruption. At this point I think it's more likely to be severe violations of the law that are getting swept under the rug.

[230RN]

Oh, and there's always the "Can't comment on an ongoing investigation."

That always bothers me.  I'm sure there are good reasons for it most of the time, but it sure is usable for....   "other things."

Terry