Yes, this man can relive the time his penis was de-gloved any time he wants…and so can anyone else

Body cameras have become synonymous with cops behaving badly, violating civil rights, and stirring up unrest following the events in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Oakland. However, the use of police body cameras is a valuable tool for protecting the rights of civilians as well as those trusted with maintaining law and order.

“If body cameras work well for keeping police operating by the book, the same should be true of other public servants like paramedics and firefighters, right?”

Dash mounted cameras have been fairly commonplace in police cars for well over a decade. As a precursor to body-worn devices, these cameras have offered an outstanding source of data to help in the post incident review of multiple patient incidents, hit-and-runs, disasters, EMS responses, and after action reports. Video that is captured during events can be integrated with other data typically used for reviews including radio communications, written reports, responder accounts, GPS data, and news footage.

However, for every person that is interested in assuring that best practices are being followed on a medical call, some poor, naked, overwieght bastard is being filmed as he is extricated from between the toilet and the bathtub where he fell and got wedged

Retrospective review of video enables organizations to identify areas for improvement that may have been missed during initial “hot wash” post-incident critique. The primary focus of quality improvement review is to determine root causes of failures or variances from standards and then to implement corrective actions.

Video review enables quality improvement personnel to replay the event, focusing on not only the general operational characteristics, but also the technical and tactical aspects. Many of these more subtle variances would be likely missed through a routine review as these key details may be not recognized through a standard review process or be forgotten or modified by fallible memories.

In addition to incident review, the use of cameras enables emergency response organizations to “tell their story”. Video is an outstanding way to show the public the value of the services provided, it helps illustrate the challenges and dangers of the work through a unique on-scene perspective that most people will never be able to appreciate, and offers first-hand accounts of “good stories”.

Excellent! So why not just jump into it?

Privacy! A great volume of case law exists that supports the right to collect audio and video data when providing emergency services. However, the public must be involved in the development of related organization policies and also consider other required privacy protections that may be related to health care services. A quality improvement program must balance the protection of identifiable patient information with the need for a transparent review of the response.

The costs of acquiring video data is relatively low, however the true cost is in the downloading and storgae of the data. The administrative processes that are required to maintain privacy and security of the data are very expensive. Terabytes of information are collected and catalogued, then must be retained for significant periods of time — all resulting in increased costs.

Organizations considering the use of cameras should first develop comprehensive policies and then complete a detailed financial analysis. Elected and appointed officials then need to evaluate the support from the community, workforce, and labor organizations. The return on investment will differ greatly for each organization and must be self-evident before proceeding with such a program.

As more and more areas of our lives become captured on video, where does the line between security and privacy get drawn? Is the filming of people in crisis a good idea? These videos are bound to capture people at their worst, having the worst days of their lives. This applies to the families and friends of the patients too, who will presumably be captured in these videos. As a public record, how many of these would be accessible under a Freedom of Information Act request, or discoverable in a legal action? If you call 9–1–1 are you giving implied consent to be video and audio recorded? Think about it — and then think about your “right to forget” rights and if they ever really existed!