When you click the above YouTube video titled, “Sig 25 (Fire) Golf Shed #2″, you will get the message, “This video removed by the user”. It was one in a series of videos posted by someone using the name “61Squad” that had been on the popular web site for months. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports all but one of videos was removed Thursday, shortly after the paper began posing questions to the Pompano Beach Fire Department.
The only “61Squad” video remaining is called “Pompano Fire Museum”. (Click the image below to see it.)
“Pompano Fire Museum” is a six-second video showing the city’s first fire truck, a 1926 American LaFrance, in front of the first fire station, which is now the museum. But the other clips showed something that is becoming a bit more controversial: videos shot at emergency scenes and inside fire stations.
As most people reading this know, whoever is behind the name “61Squad” is far from alone in sharing with the world the inside doings of a local fire department. STATter 911 posts a handful of these videos each day, culled from YouTube and LiveLeak, and often shot by firefighters and EMS workers. Whether its a helmet-cam, a phone-camera or a more traditional video-camera, it is easy to find action videos from every size fire department.
The Sun-Sentinel was able to capture some of “61Squads” work before it was removed. (Click the image below to see the compilation video.
What the paper has posted from the more than 30 videos of Pompano Beach firefighters in action seems typical of the fire and EMS generated videos that have been showing up on the web. They seem to give a window on a lot of action and a little firehouse fun. But what the Sun-Sentinel has discovered, and should not be a surprise to those in the fire and EMS business, is that there is little policy on this video revolution. Here are excerpts from the article:
The explosion in filming has happened so rapidly over the last year that many fire chiefs and city administrators are still unaware of the trend, experts say. Their display on an open forum like YouTube could raise legal issues involving privacy and malpractice in situations gone bad.
“I had no idea anything like this was going on, but I can see some problems with it right away if firefighters are shooting on the scene,” said Barry Baker, head of the Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association. “As you can imagine, we’re pretty busy when you’re dealing with an emergency, and having somebody shooting video instead of doing something else could cause some problems.”
In Palm Beach County, officials were also unaware of the phenomenon despite postings by someone calling himself “firerescuelieut.” They included videos of “E45 responding to vehicle fire,” an oven fire and the hazing of a rookie firefighter getting water dumped on him. “I wasn’t aware of it, and I don’t think anybody else is, but the only problem I could see would be any violations of privacy at this point,” said Capt. Don DeLucia, spokesman for Palm Beach County Fire Rescue. “An emergency scene is a public event, and after the privacy issues, anybody shooting video is really allowed the same leeway as you guys [the media.]“
Elsewhere, some city departments have found themselves embarrassed by video shot by working firefighters at the scenes of emergencies. In Detroit, a firefighter who posted videos closed his YouTube account earlier this year after city officials became concerned about the content.
But firefighters who maintain their own sites say they are very careful to either edit out victims or identifying factors like addresses or license numbers. They view the work as sharing potentially life-saving information as well as good public relations.
Like the Sun-Sentinel, STATter 911 and wusa9.com, have apparently sparked the removal of similar videos, and in one case a fire chief requested that a video not be shown.
In September, within hours of two YouTube videos shot by someone at Prince George’s County, MD Station 42, the clips were removed and the account closed. Similarly a response video from the Ashburn Volunteer Fire Company in Loudoun County, Virginia was removed shortly after it was posted on STATter 911. The video showed a near-collision between a fire engine and a car.
It isn’t just the Internet. In August, 2006, the Kentland Volunteer Fire Department in Prince George’s County, Maryland, provided local media with helmet-cam video of a disabled man being removed from an apartment fire. The victim was critically burned and later died. Prince George’s County Fire/EMS Chief Lawrence Sedgwick asked that news organizations discontinue running the clip, citing privacy concerns. News organizations were divided in their response. 9News Now and wusa9.com continued to run the clip.
Because of that incident, PGFD barred the addition of cameras to firefighter’s helmets, saying the safety issues needed to be studied further. But the department does not have an overall ban on cameras used by firefighters.
While anecdotal information seems to indicate that bans on cameras are the exception, rather than the rule, there is a good chance this story from Florida, and this issue, will get the attention of fire chiefs across the country. The article was picked up by FireEngineering.com, Firehouse.com, FireRescue1.com and distributed by email in the news digest from the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
Some fire service veterans who did not want to be quoted by name, told STATter 911 it would be a shame to lose these videos because they have become great training tools. At the same time, they pointed out firefighters have to use common sense to be aware of patient privacy concerns and to make sure that the first tool coming off a fire truck at an emergency is not a camera.
In central Indonesia a bus burst into flames killing 12 people
Most Recent Comments