4 ms·
At the same time, the SF Fire Department banned helmet cameras due to privacy concerns (among others): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-
by donretag 13y ago
At the same time, the SF Fire Department banned helmet cameras due to privacy concerns (among others): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-helmet-cameras-in-wake-of-crash-4741338.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-hel...
Does the utility of police headcams trump privacy?
EDIT: I am playing the devil's advocate.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoIf by privacy concerns, you mean "We don't want our mistakes made public". In this case, the running over of a crash victim from Asiana flight 214 that crashed at SFO recently.
- Zigurd 13y agoUse of force is a hot button issue, but both police and fire personnel have a lot of critical situations where not adhering to safety procedures can get someone hurt or killed. Once you get past use of force, there are more similarities than differences.
- betterunix 13y agoThe police should be spending their time in public places, and their actions should be open to scrutiny by the public. If the police enter a private home with a warrant, privacy concerns have already been addressed by the warrant. As long as the system for cataloging and accessing the videos is open source and available for the public to scrutinize (and to check for ways it might be used beyond auditing the police themselves), where do you see a privacy problem?