SF Fire still ambivalent about helmet cameras

Last week I wrote about the San Francisco Fire Department's ban on helmet cameras. Citing concern over privacy issues, Chief Joanne Hayes-White determined that a 2009 ban on cameras in SFFD "facilities" also applied to department field operations. However, the timing of the ban, coming as it did so quickly after the Asiana Airlines crash in which helmet camera footage is playing a key role in determining the cause of death of a victim crushed by fire apparatus, suggested to many observers that the Chief's real concern was avoiding potential future liability. The public outcry was so great that a day after my posting, Chief Hayes-White announced that the Department would revisit the issue and reconsider the use of helmet cameras.

The Chief's concerns over privacy do have some merit. Unauthorized release of footage could compromise the privacy of both victims and firefighters. However, the department used to have a videographer at fire scenes, a position that was eliminated by budget cuts. To fill the gap, many firefighters have opted to purchase and use their own helmet cameras. This was the case in the Asiana crash: the battalion chief serving as the incident commander filmed the event on his one helmet camera and later made the footage available to investigators. Stills from this video were used in media stories and can be readily found on YouTube.

The real issue here is that the SFFD lacked and continues to lack a policy on the use of video. Department issued equipment does not exist and there are no guidelines regarding the use of video shot with private equipment. For the Chief to claim that she was not aware of the use of private helmet cameras by firefighters and invoking a policy that was clearly intended for another purpose just highlights this lack of policy direction and suggests a command structure out of touch with field operations.

Since the announcement that the Chief would be reconsidering the ban, there has been no further word from the SFFD on this issue, suggesting that the department may be allowing the story to die while the ban stays in place. Actually, there is one bit of news. The battalion chief responsible for the Asiana Airlines video is being investigated for possible violation of the 2009 ban and may face disciplinary action.

Related articles

San Francisco Fire bans helmet cameras

San Francisco fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of Asiana Crash and Death of Ye Meng Yuane

San Francisco Fire bans helmet cameras

SFFD Chief Joanne Hayes-White

Last week I moderated a webinar on emerging technologies for public safety agencies. Among the things I noted in my introductory comments was the incredible use being made of video as a diagnostic, investigative, and training tool.

It came as a bit of surprise to note that my own city of San Francisco has just banned the use of helmet cameras. Chief Joanne Hayes-White issued the order over concerns about patient and victim privacy, noting that the city has no control over how firefighters use the footage. Together with a 2009 ban on cameras in any "facilities" the order in effect precludes the the San Francisco Fire Department from using any video tools.

The timing of the order is awkward for the Department, which has a reputation for being a bit "traditional". Helmet-camera footage from a battalion chief has been a major piece of evidence in the investigation of the death of aa victim of the Asiana Airlines crash who was accidentally run over by a fire truck. There is speculation that the department may have some liability attached because of the incident. This makes it hard to accept the ban on helmet cameras as being solely related to privacy.

Helmet camera footage has been used by the department as a training tool, much like a sports team will view game footage to learn from their mistakes. The department has also made use of video from ambulances to coordinate treatment with receiving hospitals and physicians. And, of course, footage from the crash has been shared with the agencies investigating the incident. To say that these legitimate uses of video are trumped by unspecified issues of privacy that the department is just realizing may exist is a bit specious.

There are two lessons here. The first is the importance of having well-thought out policies for the use of video. The Chief's claims that she can't control how the video is used suggests the absence of a such policy that would, among other things, prohibit unauthorized disclosure.

The second lesson is how timing can make a bad situation worse. A few weeks ago, banning helmet cameras would probably not have made the news. Coming on the heels of a major airline crash that has liability issues associated with it invites speculation that the sole purpose of the ban is to protect the department from future liability claims.

Related articles

SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash

After Airliner Crash, SF Chief Bans Helmet Cams – ABC News

After Asiana airliner crash, San Francisco chief bans helmet cams

Producers fired over embarrassing Asiana crash broadcast

A couple of weeks ago I commented on how a local television station suffered considerable embarrassment by airing what was thought to be the names of the four pilots involved in the recent Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco. The station had done its due diligence: the names came from a normally reliable source and were confirmed by the National Transportation Safety Board (the "verification" was provided by a summer intern). The names turned out to not only be wrong but offensive to the Asian community. Asiana threatened to sue the station and the NTSB.

The station corrected the problem almost as soon as it was aired (following the next break), offered profuse apologies, and promised to investigate and discipline those responsible.

One would think that the dust would settle rather quickly after a few weeks, particularly as Asiana decided not to proceed with its threatened lawsuit. Not so – the incident has become toxic to anyone associated with it. At least four producers at the station have been fired.

There is no question that the incident was embarrassing to a station that prides itself on the accuracy of its reporting. Certainly there should have been consequences for those involved. They should have known better. They should have been a bit more culturally sensitive, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. But termination of employment? It seems a pretty steep price to pay for a moment of stupidity.

I'm always leery of expressing opinions without knowing the facts. There may have been egregious conduct on the part of the producers that warranted such a drastic measure. But my experience with the reporters and producers in the Bay Area has almost always been that they are hard-working professionals dedicated to getting the facts right. This sort of lapse seems out of character and it's hard for me not to believe that they were sacrificed to political correctness.

If this is indeed the case, the station may well have an additional reputational problem. A story that might have gone away quietly continues to play in the news. At least one of the producers is suing for wrongful termination, which guarantees that the story will continue. It's a good example of how to make a reputational crisis worse.

Related articles

NTSB says an intern to blame for embarrassing names read by TV news

Video: San Francisco TV Station KTVU Incorrectly Names Asiana Pilots

San Francisco plane crash: Asiana Airlines will sue KTVU after TV station used racially offensive names for the four pilots

Fact checking doesn't replace commonsense

KTVU fires at least three producers over Asiana names

Manslaughter Conviction for Costa Concordia Crisis Coordinator

Last year I wrote about the conviction for manslaughter of a group of seismologists in the Italian courts for their predictions related to the L'Aquila earthquake. Now the Italian courts have upped the ante.

Five employees of the Costa Crociere SpA cruise company have been convicted on multiple counts of manslaughter related to the wreck of the Costa Concordia. Two bridge officers and the helmsman were sentenced to 20 to 23 months in prison (the captain will be tried separately) and the Concordia's cabin services manager received two years and six months. However, the company's crisis coordinator received the longest sentence: two years and ten months.

Sentences under two years were suspended and the longer sentences replaced with house arrest.

Now one must be careful about drawing assumptions because there are no details on why the crisis coordinator was tried and convicted. It is unclear whether he was on the vessel and responsible for deaths through negligence or merely developed emergency plans for the company. The court's reasoning behind the verdicts will be released within 90 days.

However, the sentence does have a certain consistency with the L'Aquila verdict on the part of the Italian courts: a tendency to blame planners as well as those actually responsible for the incident. As did the L'Aquila verdict, the conviction of a crisis coordinator raises an interesting question of responsibility. Since most crisis coordinators have limited authority both in planning and executing emergency plans, should they be held accountable for inadequate planning in a court of law? Or does the true responsibility lie with the organization for which they work? In the case of the Costa Concordia, Costa Crociere avoided criminal prosecution through the payment of 1 million Euro fine.

If this is becomes a trend in other countries, it makes the use of standards and program documentation critical. Professional practices are not just the right thing to do, they may be your sole defence if you're called to account for your stewardship.

Fact checking doesn’t replace commonsense

Last week I wrote about the importance of checking your facts before passing on information. However, I should probably have also mentioned that the source you use to check those facts is important. Confirming one Facebook posting by using another does not count. Also, a little common sense goes a long way towards keeping you out of trouble.

One of our local TV stations found this out the hard way last week. In my former life as Director of Emergency Services, I came to know many of the reporters and news editors here in the San Francisco Bay Area and, almost without exception, I found them committed to factual and accurate reporting. This station is no different. When they found themselves in possession of information that had the potential to be a "scoop," they checked it with a credible source and then ran the story.

The "scoop" was a list of the names of the Korean pilots of the Asiana Airlines flight that crashed at San Francisco International Airport last week. The station is not saying where they got the names, but I suspect it was from a social media posting. The station contacted the National Transportation Safety Board which confirmed the names. The station then aired a report complete with graphics identifying the pilots.

So what's the problem? Didn't the station do what was expected by confirming the information with a credible source?

The key is the word "credible." The person who answered the phone at the NTSB was a summer intern who was trying to be helpful and confirmed the names, even though he didn't know them. But it shouldn't never have gotten that far. The list of names was: Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, and Bang Ding Ow. Whoever thought that these were real names is probably polishing their resume and should consider some sensitivity training. The NTSB is most likely looking at the training it provides interns. And there are already plenty of jokes about newscasters reading whatever is on the teleprompter.

It would almost be funny if it weren't for the consequences. A television station that touts its accurate coverage has had its reputation tarnished and is suffering extreme embarassment. Worse, Asiana Airlines is suing the station over its "racially discriminatory report" and is considering suing the NTSB.

So when doing your fact checking, don't neglect to use a bit of common sense. If the story seems too good to be true, it probably is. And in checking facts, make sure you know who is answering the phone. It just might be the janitor.

SF Hotels Gouge Crash Victims? Definitely not!

The Internet has given everyone the power to be a reporter. This is not necessarily a bad thing – I know better than most how little gets reported in the mainstream media and how ofter what is reported is distorted. Unfortunately, the average Internet user doesn't receive a journalist's training in fact-checking and ethics.

Case in point is a story making the rounds about how local San Francisco hotels gouged the victims of the recent airplane crash as San Francisco Airport with inflated room rates. Hey, the facts were right there on the hotels' websites for all to see: rooms that normally rent for $100 or $200 a night were costing up to $1,200.

Except, of course, that isn't the whole story and the truth is quite different. The high rates are indeed correct – at the time of the crash the Bay Area was hosting the annual Semicon West conference, a huge microelectronics conference that creates the second busiest week of the year for Bay Area hotels. Hotel rates are adjusted based on the rules of supply and demand, so the rates hosted on the companys' websites are normal for this time of year.

But that isn't the rate that was charged to victims and their families. Instead, local hotels set aside hundreds of rooms, lowered rates and offered discounts of up to 70% to victims and their families while turning away guests at the higher rate. Our local hotels did their bit and they don't deserve the bad rap they got from the Internet "journalists".

So they next time you come across a startling expose and are tempted to hit the "share" button, take a minute or two to do some fact checking. There's plenty of bad information out there already and we should do our best not to add to it.

Vigilance as the Price of Freedom? Some thoughts on the 4th

The Founding Fathers were not universally nice people. The were venal and indecisive, made decisions based on political or economic gain, and had hidden vices. They were not gifted with prescience or an ability to see the future. In short, they were just ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances. Yet somehow they managed to craft a political experiment unique in the history of the world, one where all people, at least in theory, are equal before the law.

How is that experiment faring these days? It depends on who you ask. Our personal fears have allowed the emergency of a government that spies indiscriminately on its citizens using a bloated intelligence bureaucracy staffed primarily by contractors, replaces citizen soldiers with mercenaries, uses torture and assassination as instruments of state policy, and has laws that permit citizens to be stripped of constitutional rights by declaring them enemies of the state. Is this truly the America we want?

There are certainly those that would argue that these are necessary compromises that must be made to prevent threats to our way of life. I'm not naive enough to deny that there isn't some justification to these arguments. I have been a soldier and have worked in security during the terrorism scare of the 70's and 80"s. I understand the threat and am sympathetic to those centurions who stand on the wall.

But what is the that threat? The decimation of a city? We've survived that: San Francisco in 1906, Chicago 1871, Galveston 1900, Boston 1872, New Orleans 2005, and countless others. The death of thousands? An estimate 675,000 Americans died in the flu pandemic of 1918. Approximately 49,000 die each year from the flu.

My point is not to minimize loss of life or the suffering occasioned by a terrorist attack. These are horrible and senseless events and we are right both to fear them and to try and prevent them. However, we need to stop fearing terrorism as a personal threat and recognize that collectively we are stronger than any terrorist organization. No matter the nature of the attack, our society can survive so long as we hold to our values.

Vigilance is indeed the price of freedom but that vigilance needs to be turned inwards as well as towards external threats. There is a reason that the oath taken by any soldier or government employee is first and foremost to the Constitution and the rights it embodies. On this 4th of July, it is well to remember the quote attributed to Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."