A firefighter can now be fired for even possessing the camera on duty, and the Captain is responsible for ensuring compliance.

There are those who consider this to be censorship and a first amendment violation. Others are applauding this rule to limit the liability of a department when the feces strikes the rotary oscillator.

My department, while not prohibiting the camera, has instituted a rule prohibiting the posting of incident images on-line, and also the posting of call information, comments about another member/employee on sites such as Facebook.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this one.


http://www.texas-fire.com/2009/10/26/helmet-cameras-banned-by-houst...

Views: 898

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Michael, a department having one designated photographer is a much different proposition than letting everyone wear their own helmet camera. For starters, a designated photographer is taking photos, not fighting fire, extricating, etc. There's a big difference in how photos and video are controlled when it's one official photographer doing the video and running it by the chief prior to posting it compared to what you can see on YouTube, etc.
Notice that one of the intersections has a green light and mysteriously that intersection isn't edited out of the video???
...except that sometimes it's "uno cedo igni medica"

Res, non verba.
Seen it, that camera definitely told the story of them not stopping, and having full control of the intersections (more than one) before going through them! Not only the intersections, but the numerous cross walks with vehicles blocking their view, to notice if anyone was attempting to cross.

Bottom line, No due regard for others, evident from a video camera.
Rusty, now add the little blip about them "going from 3rd due to 1st due" after they arrived on scene. That's going to be hard to explain if that driver ever hits someone at an intersection. The problem for the department in question is that video is likely viral enough that it's going to be difficult to eradicate...and even a weak lawyer could have a field day with it.
Tony, how does putting something that shows running through red traffic lights, disorganized fireground operations, poor tactics, or a HIPAA violation get better if the only control measure is waiting 6 months to post the stuff that will get you and/or your department in trouble. Ditto for FOIA...if the department lets you use personal cameras on duty, the video is not immune from either FOIA or from legal discovery.
Just curious, Mak, how are the helmet cams valuable for training? Do you have some specifics?
My department banned helmet cameras as well as all personal cameras to include cellphone cameras. We drafted a policy and the firefighter and his or her officer will be disciplined. The issue is liability, and in some cases HIPPA. From what we were told video taping people who are not authorizing you to video tape them is a huge liability.

We even were told the audio portion is worse, federally. To be honest, it is probably a matter of time before someone makes a video or releases one and we will hear about firefighter termination...

Besides imagine a lawyer finding video on the internet that his client is suing over.... holy cow
G-O-O-G-L-E is all it takes
Right you are, Ben.
They don't even have to chase the ambulance anymore.
They have Google.
Art
Don't forget "properly edited"...

Was the Engine 1 video "properly edited" to cut out blowing through controlled intersections with the light red, or did the camera operator just hit the "pause" button...enquiring minds want to know.
Sorry for spoiling your joy...lets go ride bikes.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

FireRescue Magazine

Find Members Fast


Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2019   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service