If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Upset about the negative reaction people have when seeing pictures of your fire trucks running over people? Ban cameras   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 47
    More: Stupid, Asiana Airlines, San Francisco, helmet cam, airlines crash, fire chiefs, National Transportation Safety Board, San Mateo County, video cameras  
•       •       •

10371 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2013 at 12:27 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-19 12:29:46 PM
t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-19 12:29:57 PM
It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.
 
2013-08-19 12:32:13 PM

reezle: It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.


As mentioned in FTA, privacy is paramount! Safety and effectiveness fall somewhere lower on the list.
 
2013-08-19 12:32:20 PM
I'm not sure that the chief is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the wake of the Asiana crash. The girl was lying on the ground, covered in foam. They didn't see her, and it was an accident that they ran her over.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how a camera would be particularly effective for fire fighters. Fire fighters aren't typically known for being dicks to the people they are protecting.
 
2013-08-19 12:33:18 PM
Wow, what a twat waffle.  Yep, all about protecting people, and the best way to do that is to eliminate one of the best tools for performance review.
 
2013-08-19 12:36:35 PM
AverageAmericanGuy:
On the other hand, I'm not sure how a camera would be particularly effective for fire fighters. Fire fighters aren't typically known for being dicks to the people they are protecting.

I know a few volunteers, and a lot of them seem to like Youtube videos of people running into burning buildings for "training viewing" (hey, I guess it's a better way to get your fire kicks than lighting fires).
 
2013-08-19 12:37:05 PM
Where do they bury the survivors they run over?
 
2013-08-19 12:37:41 PM

reezle: It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.


In a decent society, I would say this ban is completely unnecessary and just being done to make cover-ups easier in cases like this.  However, in this particular society, it would not suprise me at all if someone saved by video from a helmet mounted cam was the same person serving the department with a lawsuit for privacy violations after the fact.
 
2013-08-19 12:38:56 PM
The girl was lying in foam.  I am not sure the truck could have seen her.
Having said that I can understand the HIPPA concerns.
Firefighters typically respond to medical  issues and sensitive situations.
What if you equip all of them with helmet cams and they have to rescue a large elderly woman from the bathroom floor.
You know that some nimrod would release the video. People are dicks like that.
 
2013-08-19 12:39:10 PM
This is just job security for the paid responders
 
2013-08-19 12:41:27 PM
Tazer makes these things specifically for their value of protecting officers by providing (usually) exonerating evidence for the people wearing them.
 
2013-08-19 12:42:07 PM
FTA:  "Why would anybody not want to know the truth?" asked Anthony Tarricone.

There's
a naive question. It's not about knowing the truth - it's about controlling the truth. Their department wouldn't be in such hot water had no one found out about the fire engine running over one of the passengers - the department wants to know the truth, but they can't figure out how to control it, so the only other alternative is to ban anything that can gather the truth objectively. It's far easier to control firefighters than footage.

Same reason cops hate dashboard cams, and cell phones, and cameras, and reporters - harder to control the truth with those things out there, doing who knows what.
 
2013-08-19 12:49:01 PM
Please do not spray foam on the survivors.
 
2013-08-19 12:49:10 PM
I worked for a company that had big round emergency power off buttons for all the machinery on the floor,

On day  then sent in a crew to remove them.   I asked why ?

They said that it was determined that there was an under 5% chance that if you hit the button it would not cut of the power, and if that happened there could be a lawsuit.

Now they have no fear........
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:53:51 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure that the chief is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the wake of the Asiana crash. The girl was lying on the ground, covered in foam. They didn't see her, and it was an accident that they ran her over.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how a camera would be particularly effective for fire fighters. Fire fighters aren't typically known for being dicks to the people they are protecting.


No but that's not what they are for.  They are for evaluating performance.  Sort of like recording athletes to help with their technique.
 
2013-08-19 12:55:42 PM

Driedsponge: reezle: It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.

In a decent society, I would say this ban is completely unnecessary and just being done to make cover-ups easier in cases like this.  However, in this particular society, it would not suprise me at all if someone saved by video from a helmet mounted cam was the same person serving the department with a lawsuit for privacy violations after the fact.


This is pretty much it. We work with a lot of FDs and the conversation about helmet cameras (after "can we afford it") quickly boils down to how they'll be used by the horde of lawyers who descend on every accident scene looking for someone to sue.
 
2013-08-19 12:57:56 PM

vpb: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure that the chief is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the wake of the Asiana crash. The girl was lying on the ground, covered in foam. They didn't see her, and it was an accident that they ran her over.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how a camera would be particularly effective for fire fighters. Fire fighters aren't typically known for being dicks to the people they are protecting.

No but that's not what they are for.  They are for evaluating performance.  Sort of like recording athletes to help with their technique.


Makes sense, I guess.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:58:47 PM
It's getting pretty common for people to have cameras.  There are specially made dash cameras made to collect evidence in case you are in an accident, and wearable cameras are common for police.

You can even buy a camera pen for <$100.
 
2013-08-19 01:05:55 PM
Uh, yeah, cause the camera is at fault, right Chief?
 
2013-08-19 01:09:25 PM

booger42: Uh, yeah, cause the camera is at fault, right Chief?


He's not your chief, pal
 
2013-08-19 01:12:48 PM

booger42: Uh, yeah, cause the camera is at fault, right Chief?


Um yeah. What else led to people knowing about their incompetence?
 
2013-08-19 01:20:56 PM
The police are taking notes on this.
 
2013-08-19 01:41:01 PM
With cameras being so ubiquitous the knee-jerk reactions from authority figures trying to suppress video evidence is quite interesting.

If our public officials are not doing anything wrong then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.
 
2013-08-19 01:54:55 PM

Moopy Mac: reezle: It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.

As mentioned in FTA, privacy is paramount! Safety and effectiveness fall somewhere lower on the list.


try and read a little closer. the person run over was covered in foam and lying on the tarmac. they probably didn't even register it was a person till afterward.
 
2013-08-19 02:01:00 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: booger42: Uh, yeah, cause the camera is at fault, right Chief?

He's not your chief, pal


not your pal, bro
 
2013-08-19 02:03:50 PM
It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting privacy and is 100% a liability limiting move.   If privacy were the driving concern, faces and identifying information could easily be edited out, especially with the newer systems that upload the video to a centralized server instead of storing it locally.   Cameras are being blocked because every single moment of video can be taken via subpeona or FOIA'd to death and every action scrutinized for liability and there isn't the counterbalancing need for evidence gathering like there is with the police.  The fire departments are afraid, and probably rightfully so, that their own videos will be used against them in lawsuits.  Which means of course that invaluable training tools are being lost.
 
2013-08-19 02:04:53 PM

DashFieldpaint: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: booger42: Uh, yeah, cause the camera is at fault, right Chief?

He's not your chief, pal

not your pal, bro


not your bro, friend
 
2013-08-19 02:06:52 PM

booger42: DashFieldpaint: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: booger42: Uh, yeah, cause the camera is at fault, right Chief?

He's not your chief, pal

not your pal, bro

not your bro, friend


not your friend, mate
 
2013-08-19 02:08:49 PM

lemortede: The girl was lying in foam.  I am not sure the truck could have seen her.
Having said that I can understand the HIPPA concerns.
Firefighters typically respond to medical  issues and sensitive situations.
What if you equip all of them with helmet cams and they have to rescue a large elderly woman from the bathroom floor.
You know that some nimrod would release the video. People are dicks like that.


Then you prosecute the nimrod who released the video, not eliminate a tool for improving procedures. The hospitals I work in are filled with cameras, including in some of the patients rooms.
 
2013-08-19 02:20:16 PM
That's liberatainment!
 
2013-08-19 02:25:25 PM

lemortede: The girl was lying in foam.  I am not sure the truck could have seen her.
Having said that I can understand the HIPPA concerns.
Firefighters typically respond to medical  issues and sensitive situations.
What if you equip all of them with helmet cams and they have to rescue a large elderly woman from the bathroom floor.
You know that some nimrod would release the video. People are dicks like that.


If there is a HIPAA issue they could simply keep the footage stored properly and not release it to the public without doing so in a way that would protect patient privacy.

And maybe a new 'best practice' for emergency vehicles responding to plane crashes might be "don't run over debris as it may be a living body".
 
2013-08-19 02:27:21 PM
Article with actual details on how the girl was hit by the fire truck here.  Also some stills from the helmet video in question.  None are graphic.
 
2013-08-19 02:31:48 PM
If the siren was going, then maybe he should have MOVED OUT OF THE WAY.

/drtfa
 
2013-08-19 02:38:37 PM
I'm sure if Austin PD had ITS way it would be banning people from filming them as well..oh wait, they already sort of try to do that, don't they?
 
2013-08-19 02:41:06 PM

andyofne: And maybe a new 'best practice' for emergency vehicles responding to plane crashes might be "don't run over debris as it may be a living body".


You might not know the debris is there either.  That's why new generation airport fire fighting vehicles are being equipped with infrared devices for the driver.  So you can see what's below the foam.
 
2013-08-19 02:41:59 PM
Ah, San Francisco, where even the single broads hyphenate their names.
 
2013-08-19 02:46:04 PM

LoneWolf343: If the siren was going, then maybe he should have MOVED OUT OF THE WAY.

/drtfa


You didn't need to add the DRTFA, trust me, that was obvious. It was a she and she had just been involved in a plane crash. It's likely that she was unable to move.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:47 PM
Listen, sugartits, no one is saying that you have to release every bit of footage from the helmet cams to the public.

Surely we can find a balance of giving the public all information about EVERYTHING and refusing to collect any information because of privacy concerns?
 
2013-08-19 03:27:01 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure that the chief is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the wake of the Asiana crash. The girl was lying on the ground, covered in foam. They didn't see her, and it was an accident that they ran her over.


When you have a camera you get second-guessed.  Things can be spotted on camera that the people in the emergency miss.

AverageAmericanGuy: On the other hand, I'm not sure how a camera would be particularly effective for fire fighters. Fire fighters aren't typically known for being dicks to the people they are protecting.


It's about figuring out how to do things better next time.

DanQuayle: I worked for a company that had big round emergency power off buttons for all the machinery on the floor,

On day  then sent in a crew to remove them.   I asked why ?

They said that it was determined that there was an under 5% chance that if you hit the button it would not cut of the power, and if that happened there could be a lawsuit.

Now they have no fear........


It seems to me that such things are just asking for it.

Someone got hurt and they might have been saved by the safety feature you removed.  If I were on a jury I would be inclined to crucify the company.
 
2013-08-19 04:10:23 PM
Here is Boston, the firefighters screamed bloody murder whenever the subject of drug testing comes up. Because of...you know....safety. Union strong!
 
2013-08-19 05:52:09 PM
Firefighters / paramedics deal with patients and privacy is a paramount issue.

The issue with cameras is that anything that they record becomes potential evidence that could be subpoenaed in the event of a criminal or civil case. Sometimes it can save you, sometimes it can hang you.

Our local Fire Corps are only allowed to take photos at an incident with a camera provided by the fire department. After an incident it must be turned back in. The fire department screens and releases only those photos deemed appropriate.

I did see a helmet cam recorded by one of our local fire captains that showed where an electric meter had been removed but had been bypassed so that power was still on to the house. But that was a very long time ago.
 
2013-08-19 10:40:13 PM

lemortede: The girl was lying in foam.  I am not sure the truck could have seen her.
Having said that I can understand the HIPPA concerns.
Firefighters typically respond to medical  issues and sensitive situations.
What if you equip all of them with helmet cams and they have to rescue a large elderly woman from the bathroom floor.
You know that some nimrod would release the video. People are dicks like that.


You mean someone like this asshat!

I know read about more. It was a 3 or 4 day spread in the NY Post.
 
2013-08-19 10:52:13 PM

Netrngr: Moopy Mac: reezle: It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.

As mentioned in FTA, privacy is paramount! Safety and effectiveness fall somewhere lower on the list.

try and read a little closer. the person run over was covered in foam and lying on the tarmac. they probably didn't even register it was a person till afterward.


That's exactly what happened
They had no idea they had run over someone until they were on scene and dealing with what they faced
It was noticed that a person was on the ground
They realized when responding, that it looked as though the now dead body had been run over by a vehicle
A litlle investigation led to the fire truck parked near by
It was then they viewed the video from the helmet cam, which they had for training purposes, and came to the conclusion that the truck ran over the victum
No one was at fault, it just happened, it was a chaotic scene


Sad for the girl
They never said from what I've read about what injuries she had from the crash
She could have been mortialy wounded, with little chance of survival anyway
Still......
 
2013-08-19 11:01:05 PM

DownDaRiver: Netrngr: Moopy Mac: reezle: It's all about privacy, and protecting the innocent.

As mentioned in FTA, privacy is paramount! Safety and effectiveness fall somewhere lower on the list.

try and read a little closer. the person run over was covered in foam and lying on the tarmac. they probably didn't even register it was a person till afterward.

That's exactly what happened
They had no idea they had run over someone until they were on scene and dealing with what they faced
It was noticed that a person was on the ground
They realized when responding, that it looked as though the now dead body had been run over by a vehicle
A litlle investigation led to the fire truck parked near by
It was then they viewed the video from the helmet cam, which they had for training purposes, and came to the conclusion that the truck ran over the victum
No one was at fault, it just happened, it was a chaotic scene


Sad for the girl
They never said from what I've read about what injuries she had from the crash
She could have been mortialy wounded, with little chance of survival anyway
Still......


Added note to that:
With the video, they do now, realize that coming up on an airplane crash like that, that there needs to be more training and concern about their approach
Seems like common sense to me to avert debris when driving
But still.......
 
2013-08-20 01:26:44 AM
Just the kind of parochial, self-serving attitude that makes police and fire departments have such a bad taste in the mouths of the citizens they serve.

And then they portray it in terms of "privacy for the victims".

Chief Joanne Hayes-White and others of her ilk make me sick. Where is decent leadership to be found in a culture of deceit?
 
2013-08-20 01:28:08 AM

lemortede: What if you equip all of them with helmet cams and they have to rescue a large elderly woman from the bathroom floor.
You know that some nimrod would release the video. People are dicks like that.


There are already pay sites for that particular kink.

/I am told . . .
 
2013-08-20 07:04:37 PM
No surprise - the Colonial Marines did the same thing after that little incident on LV-426.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report