Fire Scene Photography

[mwE33 1]

taking pictures of a fire scene. its a cool thing to do and everybody is guilty including myself. but there are legal and physical risks to it. you can violate hippa laws and if you paying attention to taking pictures your really not paying attention to your saftey many people have gotten hurt doing this i just wanna hear some other peoples opinions on this.

[ny10570 745]

mwE33, what about fire scene photography are you so worried is going to get you in trouble? This comes up every few months on here. First, HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The first half of it pertains to accessibility of health care, continued coverage, etc and applies to people who have lost or changed insurers. The second half is where people get into such a huff. The simple answer is HIPAA doesn't apply to you. It only applies to entities defined by the Dept of Health and Human Services. These include health plans, billing services, community health information systems, and entities that transmit health care data in a way regulated by HIPAA. It basically covers information that is uniquely identifiable to the individual patient and the transmission and storage of such information. As long as you are out in public photographing what is plainly visible you are completely protected. if you're there working for an agency as a volunteer or paid employee then they may have rules governing photography but thats different. Someone crashes a car or sets their house on fire you can photograph and publish anything you see from the license plate on the car to the faces of the people involved.

[gamewell45 258]

taking pictures of a fire scene. its a cool thing to do and everybody is guilty including myself. but there are legal and physical risks to it. you can violate hippa laws and if you paying attention to taking pictures your really not paying attention to your saftey many people have gotten hurt doing this i just wanna hear some other peoples opinions on this.

As long as you do not violate "hippa" laws you can snap away to your hearts content. The working press enjoys in some cases, unprecedented access to fire and accident scenes, though rarely do they attempt to enter someones residence in an effort to take photos tho' some paparazzi will stop at no ends to get "that photo" including breaking the law.

[Guest Photounit]

Oh no........ Not more HIPPA garbage again........ And it's HIPAA not HIPPA - HIPAA stands for "HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996" and only pertains to medical documents/records and has nothing to do with photo's........ I am SOOOOOOO tired of people constantly relating HIPAA to Emergency Service Photography.....

Here is a link that explains HIPAA - http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Would everybody please read over all the info and kindly show me where it mentions anything about Emergency Service Photography...........................................

Yes, it is cool taking fireground photo's and that's why I do it........ And if you can't take photo's safely on the fireground then you shouldn't be on the fireground- IN ANY CAPACITY.......

Seth, can you put the above link on the sign up page and have a disclaimer that they have read and fully understand the HIPAA laws....... Somebody better do it because of all the posts I see telling or suggesting to me that I can't take photo's because of HIPAA it's pretty obvious that many people don't understand the law and if that's the case, it's pretty likely that it's being violated.....

Sorry gang........ But this struck a nerve........ :angry:

Edited July 15, 2008 by Photounit

[gamewell45 258]

Oh no........ Not more HIPPA garbage again........ And it's HIPAA not HIPPA - HIPAA stands for "HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996" and only pertains to medical documents/records and has nothing to do with photo's........ I am SOOOOOOO tired of people constantly relating HIPAA to Emergency Service Photography.....

Here is a link that explains HIPAA - http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Would everybody please read over all the info and kindly show me where it mentions anything about Emergency Service Photography...........................................

Yes, it is cool taking fireground photo's and that's why I do it........ And if you can't take photo's safely on the fireground then you shouldn't be on the fireground- IN ANY CAPACITY.......

Seth, can you put the above link on the sign up page and have a disclaimer that they have read and fully understand the HIPAA laws....... Somebody better do it because of all the posts I see telling or suggesting to me that I can't take photo's because of HIPAA it's pretty obvious that many people don't understand the law and if that's the case, it's pretty likely that it's being violated.....

Sorry gang........ But this struck a nerve........ :angry:

As far fetched as this may sound, if you were photographing medical documents on the fire scene such as the forms used by EMS personnel when they assess patients and publishing them, that could constitute a violation of HIPAA. In reading the link you supplied, I found the following paragraph to be most pursuasive: 本簡明資訊向您說明根據OCR執行的法律您享有的民權。同時也告訴您如何提出申訴。 Although it is in a foreign language, for those of you who can read it, will shed light on any questions you may have about HIPAA and yes Photounit you are 100% correct in your statement.

[CPAGE 2]

Info from a Photo web site (Firepics.com)

HIPAA applies to any agency, service, department or company that provides and/or bills for medical services and it's employees. It only applies to patients, i.e. someone that received MEDICAL assessent or treatment, and then, specifically to the agency. Convoluted, huh?

Basically, if your department provides any care from the level of First responder up, HIPAA will apply to you. Specifically, the information that is protected is the person's identity, medical history and billing information. The key word is patient. You can't show the face of an entrapped MVA victim who is being extricated, nor can you display an image that contains the vehicle license plate, as both are considered identifying information, however, if there were no injuries, AND no EMS assessment, the license plate or face of the vehicle owner looking at their totaled car are perfectly acceptable. If nothing can be used to specifically identify the victim, the image is considered to be HIPAA compliant

The same applies to fire scenes. A picture of a homeowner that did not sustain injuries and was not assessed by EMS, but is watching as their home burns is fair game. If you have a building fire and photos can readily identify the structure, and a victim was treated, it's covered by HIPAA. Blurring out the identifying info satisfies the HIPAA privacy requirement.

Photographers attached to a department that is subject to HIPAA must ensure that all identifying information is properly removed or redacted. Departments using outside photographers' work on their website must also ensure the removal or redaction of identifying information, as once it is put on the department's website, there is a connection of the image to the department, thus making it subject to HIPAA. Department photographers who are off duty are not compelled by HIPAA, and can display their work wherever they like, except in the above case where displaying it on a site would create a connection to an agency compelled by HIPAA.

In general, a non-department affiliated photographer can take whatever pictures they want, as long as they are taken from a place that the public normally has access to. They can display those images wherever they want, and are not subject to HIPAA, however, in this overly litigious society where anyone can file a lawsuit, they are subject to civil claims for damages such as defamation, pain & suffering and other violation of Tort Law. Accredited news agencies have Constitutional protection under Freedom of The Press, but non-accredited sources, such as Firepics does not. Under the Constitution, you have Freedom of Expression only until that expression causes damage to someone else, then it becomes a matter for the courts.

HIPAA is not a revolutionary thing in the pre-hospital arena, as pre-hospital care providers are aware of their suroundings and the necessity to protect patient confidentiality. It has been a huge change in the in-hospital environment where doctors used to discuss patient matters in the open, elevators being the most common place for confidentiality to be breached. The entire thing came about because hospitals were selling patient specific information to pharmaceutical companies who in turn were using the info to direct market their products to the patients.

General rule of HIPAA: If there was no patient, HIPAA doesn't apply.

[x635 4,066]

There's a couple of articles in this month's JEMS magazine about EMS Photogaphy and policies.

I completly agree with PhotoUnit, and others who have posted, so I don't need to get into the people who throw the excuse of HIPPA when they only know the inaccurate, for lack of better words, stereotype of the law.

I don't agree with taking photos while on duty, unless you are are PIO or similar and that's your role, or are assigned by the OIC.

I'm sick of hearing all kinds of excuses that try and "ban" legal photography. One of my pet peeves is people who use "homeland security" as an excuse not to be able to take a photo of anything. It seems that the hobby of photogrphy is increasingly disparaged by the emergency services community. Digital photography has changed the playing field, of course, and people who have a legit interest in the hobby are increasingly becoming victims of any Joe Schmo with a camera phone and the negative situations they sometimes cause.

I've also noticed that some chiefs don't want their photos of their agency appearing online, no matter who took them, because they are afraid that their incompetencies will be documented, or they may face constructive criticism.

[ann11682 1]

the HIPAA argument aside-- i think a lot of people disregard the fact that any emergency scene, to one person or another, is an emergency scene to a victim- whether it be a car accident, or a house fire. many, including myself, may be sensitive to the fact that photographs are taken during this emergency. My boyfriend and I (myself volunteer, and him career) are both firefighters. this past memorial day we lost our home to fire when our propane tank defaulted and lit the siding on fire- extending to the eaves and attic. within 2 minutes of initial dispatch more people with cameras showed up (some in the way of the responding firefighters- which really got me pissed off) than firefighters with gear on- obviously those with scanners looking for something good to do. the second i saw the camera i asked who they were with, immediately responding the name of a neighboring fire department, i told them to kindly leave and i didnt want pictures taken. many of the pictures published and released were those taken by people in the fire service that work with us- which was fine, seeing as i knew exactly where the photographs were ending up. but knowing that some buff in your town has pictures of your home being destroyed- does not bode well with me. being on the other side of the fence and watching your own home burn down is horrifying. when we are used to putting out the fire and joking about it later, we watched our friends get hurt and work their asses off trying to put out our home in 86 degree weather, while we had to stand by and watch (or in our case, take a ride in the ambulance to saint francis). so--- though i myself enjoy photography quite a bit, i always think twice before taking certain pictures, out of the respect for those involved. many may not understand this, but when you are the victim in the mva, or actually lose your own home- maybe its a little more understandable. so when we think of the "cool thing to do," dont forget that that property is owned by someone

[mwE33 1]

the hippa law voilation was aimed at taking pics of people injured in the fire

[Billy 68]

taking pictures of a fire scene. its a cool thing to do and everybody is guilty including myself. but there are legal and physical risks to it. you can violate hippa laws and if you paying attention to taking pictures your really not paying attention to your saftey many people have gotten hurt doing this i just wanna hear some other peoples opinions on this.

Was the idea of your original post to discuss HIPAA laws or to discuss the action of those who take pictures at fire scenes? Perhaps your post was not understood right? You certainly have touched a few nerves!!

If you're just talking about safety at a fire scene then of course you always have to think about where you are, where you should be, and what or who you are taking pictures of. And that also goes to the sensitivity issue that was brought up by ann11682.

[jack10562 414]

The issue goes beyond individual safety, and gets into subject sensitivity. There are legal and privacy concerns, where you as a photographer might infringe on a subject individual's rights. Taking photos in public is generally a protected activity, but there is a line drawn where publishing certain photos can be considered as an "unreasonable intrusion" if the individual subjects are identifiable and in a location where they should enjoy "a reasonable expectation of privacy".

People sue anyone for anything, don't go and get yourself into court over a couple of "great shots" that capture "raw emotion" when you don't have the subject's explicit permission to publish those.

[Guest Photounit]

I attend a lecture by Chief Alan Brunacini of the Phoenix FD. and he referred to the Fire/EMS service as "The worst day of someones life business" In other words, when the public calls on us, they are having what is probably one of their worst days of their lives and unfortunately sometimes in extreme situations, it might be their last.......

Being involved in emergency services as a provider, we are accustomed to only seeing things from our perspective, unfortunately for Ann, she experienced the other side which is something we all hope to never have to go through. Ann, I'm sorry you lost your home and have some idea what you did/are going through however, I think your anger towards the photographers may be a little harsh....I was there but late in the game, stayed for five minutes, and then left so I can't say what was done was improper.

Photography is an important part of the fire service. I take photo's of all aspects from fires to MVA's and I don't feel any regrets and nor should I........ I don't violate anyones rights, privacy, show disrespect, or plaster gruesome photo's all over the net. What I do is take photo's that tell a story, that show the good, bad, and ugly of the business that we are in and paint the fire service in a good light. Without these photo's, we could not share our stories, learn from our triumphs and mistakes, justify our existence, and maintain the camaraderie that makes the fire service what it is..... And I'm going to keep doing it.........

[FFD941 20]

I think that we need to look at this topic in another aspect.

We as fire service photographers do not take photos to plaster someone's face on the local news or newspaper, or to further the mental anguish cause by such a tragedy. We take these photos for the benefit of us as firefighters, our fellow brothers and sisters in service and the fire service in general.

On countless occasions when returning from a neighboring fire districts fire, I will return to the station and review the pictures with the guys to LEARN!! Looking at not only the bad but the good as well. What went right? What could be done better? And even "Hey maybe we should try that?"

How do we as a progressive service ever expect to learn from anything if either we weren't at the scene ourselves or we don't review the scene in a photograph? How are we supposed to learn from our mistakes?

I will say however, thankfully, never having to experience what Ann had to go through, I do not know how it feels to be on the other side. So we do need to remember that there are two sides to every story and be mindful of that when documenting the scene.

Just my 2 cents

[mwE33 1]

i was also trying to touch on the subject of the people who try and get way tooo close for a good shot

[JCESU 20]

Does anyone know what the outcome was of the photographer that was locked up in Passaic for tresspassing at a fire scene? It was a while ago and the thread was locked.

Rick

[x129K 1,393]

The issue goes beyond individual safety, and gets into subject sensitivity. There are legal and privacy concerns, where you as a photographer might infringe on a subject individual's rights. Taking photos in public is generally a protected activity, but there is a line drawn where publishing certain photos can be considered as an "unreasonable intrusion" if the individual subjects are identifiable and in a location where they should enjoy "a reasonable expectation of privacy".

People sue anyone for anything, don't go and get yourself into court over a couple of "great shots" that capture "raw emotion" when you don't have the subject's explicit permission to publish those.

Quote me all you want , but I still disagree.........

[ann11682 1]

i have to agree with many of you that photography of many incidents may be used for more than just for shock and awe in the newspapers and other media. i myself am a visual learner and completely agree that photography in the fire service of many incidents leads towards proper education of both mistakes as well as praise. at my department we most certainly use photographs as well as videos of many fires as training material- and though tragedies may have ensued, its an effective way to get the point across. so that being said- i cant say that photographs should not be taken, they just need to be taken with many other things in mind than making the front page of your local newspaper with your name on the bottom

[helicopper 1,050]

Info from a Photo web site (Firepics.com)

HIPAA applies to any agency, service, department or company that provides and/or bills for medical services and it's employees. It only applies to patients, i.e. someone that received MEDICAL assessent or treatment, and then, specifically to the agency. Convoluted, huh?

Basically, if your department provides any care from the level of First responder up, HIPAA will apply to you. Specifically, the information that is protected is the person's identity, medical history and billing information. The key word is patient. You can't show the face of an entrapped MVA victim who is being extricated, nor can you display an image that contains the vehicle license plate, as both are considered identifying information, however, if there were no injuries, AND no EMS assessment, the license plate or face of the vehicle owner looking at their totaled car are perfectly acceptable. If nothing can be used to specifically identify the victim, the image is considered to be HIPAA compliant

The same applies to fire scenes. A picture of a homeowner that did not sustain injuries and was not assessed by EMS, but is watching as their home burns is fair game. If you have a building fire and photos can readily identify the structure, and a victim was treated, it's covered by HIPAA. Blurring out the identifying info satisfies the HIPAA privacy requirement.

Photographers attached to a department that is subject to HIPAA must ensure that all identifying information is properly removed or redacted. Departments using outside photographers' work on their website must also ensure the removal or redaction of identifying information, as once it is put on the department's website, there is a connection of the image to the department, thus making it subject to HIPAA. Department photographers who are off duty are not compelled by HIPAA, and can display their work wherever they like, except in the above case where displaying it on a site would create a connection to an agency compelled by HIPAA.

In general, a non-department affiliated photographer can take whatever pictures they want, as long as they are taken from a place that the public normally has access to. They can display those images wherever they want, and are not subject to HIPAA, however, in this overly litigious society where anyone can file a lawsuit, they are subject to civil claims for damages such as defamation, pain & suffering and other violation of Tort Law. Accredited news agencies have Constitutional protection under Freedom of The Press, but non-accredited sources, such as Firepics does not. Under the Constitution, you have Freedom of Expression only until that expression causes damage to someone else, then it becomes a matter for the courts.

HIPAA is not a revolutionary thing in the pre-hospital arena, as pre-hospital care providers are aware of their suroundings and the necessity to protect patient confidentiality. It has been a huge change in the in-hospital environment where doctors used to discuss patient matters in the open, elevators being the most common place for confidentiality to be breached. The entire thing came about because hospitals were selling patient specific information to pharmaceutical companies who in turn were using the info to direct market their products to the patients.

General rule of HIPAA: If there was no patient, HIPAA doesn't apply.

Is this an excerpt from the actual statute or someone's interpretation of the statute? I've never heard of HIPAA applying to someone's image as taken on the street or in any other public place! Can you clarify?

I'd just like to remind everyone of the requirement to cite references to laws/regulations or other pertinent documents that are referred to in a post. This can be found at http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=23856

This is the link to the full text of the statute. I find only one reference to photographs anywhere in the statute and it doesn't seem to relate to scene photography.

In a nutshell, I don't think HIPAA applies at all to scene photography unless you're a "covered entity" as described by the statute - and I don't see many fire scene photographers meeting that requirement!

§ 164.514 Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected health information.

(a) Standard: De-identification of protected health information. Health information that does not identify an individual and with respect to which there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify an individual is not individually identifiable health information.

( b ) Implementation specifications: Requirements for de-identification of protected health information.

A covered entity may determine that health information is not individually identifiable health information only if:

(1) A person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable:

(i) Applying such principles and methods, determines that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is a subject of the information; and

(ii) Documents the methods and results of the analysis that justify such determination; or

(2)(i) The following identifiers of the individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual, are removed:

(A) Names;

( B ) All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census:

(1) The geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains

more than 20,000 people; and

(2) The initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000.

© All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older;

(D) Telephone numbers;

(E) Fax numbers;

(F) Electronic mail addresses;

(G) Social security numbers;

(H) Medical record numbers;

(I) Health plan beneficiary numbers;

(J) Account numbers;

(K) Certificate/license numbers;

(L) Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;

(M) Device identifiers and serial numbers;

(N) Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs);

(O) Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers;

(P) Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints;

(Q) Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and

® Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, except as permitted by paragraph © of this section; and

(ii) The covered entity does not have actual knowledge that the information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual who is a subject of the information.

© Implementation specifications: Re-identification. A covered entity may assign a code or other means of record identification to allow information de-identified under this section to be re-identified by the covered entity, provided that:

(1) Derivation. The code or other means of record identification is not derived from or related to information about the individual and is not otherwise capable of being translated so as to identify the individual; and

(2) Security. The covered entity does not use or disclose the code or other means of record identification for any other purpose, and does not disclose the mechanism for re-identification.

Above is the reference that I found to photos and I don't think a scene photo meets the requirement here.

There was another very interesting thread on scene photography that you should also read... http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=24881&st=0

[jack10562 414]

Quote me all you want , but I still disagree.........

Okay... Let's review: And then I'm done. You are on your own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking photos to record an event, I do it all the time, just be very careful you don't "cross the line" and potentially become involved in a court case that can be easily avoided in the first place.

Intrusion

One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652B.

Courts have recognized four major branches of privacy law: 1) unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion; 2) unreasonable revelation of private facts; 3) unreasonably placing another person in a false light before the public; and 4) misappropriation of a persons name or likeness.

Journalists run afoul of this tort through the process of gathering information. The subsequent publication of the information is not required.

In June 1998, Californias highest court concluded that two people injured in a car accident could sue for invasion of privacy based on the fact that a cameraman recorded emergency aid given in a rescue helicopter. The accident victims, the court held, could claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rescue helicopter, even if they did not expect their conversations in the helicopter would not be overheard and could not claim a right to privacy at the accident scene prior to being moved to the helicopter. See Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998).

City of Oak Creek v. Ah King, 436 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1989) (photographer has no First Amendment right of access to crash scene from which the public has been excluded)

[Billy 68]

I attend a lecture by Chief Alan Brunacini of the Phoenix FD. and he referred to the Fire/EMS service as "The worst day of someones life business" In other words, when the public calls on us, they are having what is probably one of their worst days of their lives and unfortunately sometimes in extreme situations, it might be their last.......

Being involved in emergency services as a provider, we are accustomed to only seeing things from our perspective, unfortunately for Ann, she experienced the other side which is something we all hope to never have to go through. Ann, I'm sorry you lost your home and have some idea what you did/are going through however, I think your anger towards the photographers may be a little harsh....I was there but late in the game, stayed for five minutes, and then left so I can't say what was done was improper.

Photography is an important part of the fire service. I take photo's of all aspects from fires to MVA's and I don't feel any regrets and nor should I........ I don't violate anyones rights, privacy, show disrespect, or plaster gruesome photo's all over the net. What I do is take photo's that tell a story, that show the good, bad, and ugly of the business that we are in and paint the fire service in a good light. Without these photo's, we could not share our stories, learn from our triumphs and mistakes, justify our existence, and maintain the camaraderie that makes the fire service what it is..... And I'm going to keep doing it.........

Well said Bill!

[Billy 68]

i was also trying to touch on the subject of the people who try and get way tooo close for a good shot

Then you are definitely talking about a safety issue for both the Photographer and the emergency personnel on scene. I don't think anyone(especially from this website) would want to interfere at a fire scene to get a shot. We all can act professionally. But I guess we all have seen those that do not.

[mwE33 1]

i have seen people get just as close as the ff's fighting to get a good pic nd thats why i started this thread

Edited July 17, 2008 by x635
Member is currently suspended while we look into the apparent intentional use of two usernames, which is a violation of the Verified Member program terms

[x635 4,066]

if you paying attention to taking pictures your really not paying attention to your saftey many people have gotten hurt doing this

Please cite the articles or instances you mention as happening many times. You can pay attention to taking photos AND pay attention to your safety at the same time. Thousands of press and other photog's do it every day.

How often do you hear about photographers going to the hospital from injuries at a fire scene?

That's kind of the equivelant of saying "If you're looking at your thermal imaging camera, you're not paying attention to your safety".

i have seen people get just as close as the ff's fighting to get a good pic nd thats why i started this thread

While I don't dispute that, it's unfair to paint everyone with the same brush.

My feeling is that you recently were annoyed by a photographer or buff at a fire scene, and you chose to air that peeve here. Which is not a problem at all. However, did you alert the OIC or Safety Officer to this person? Did you see the persons photos online, and email him/her about the situation? Did you address this with the OIC after the incident?

Or, did you look at the photos, and ASSUME the person got too close? Because their is something called a zoom lens, and it can make the photographer seem closer then he/she really is.

[Guest MVFD334]

I dont see why people have to snap photo's of people in MVA's and such (photos where victims faces are apparent), and print them in the paper or post them on the internet. I have seen it in just about every local paper. If a photo is taken and it can be proved to be a leaning tool, then by all means that is great but what about the victims? Not only is it disrespectful but your in the face of someone that is obviously in distress and for some unkown reason you feel you have to photograph it. It that was a friend or a family memebr of yours would you still be doing that? There are many people out there who take photos and use good judgement when posting them, and I have no problem at all with that. Its just when i have to see the patients face, that is what is bothering. I dont think anyone wants to relive something over again ecspecialy<~ (spell check) in a newspaper.

[TAPSJ 30]

I personally would rather have pictures of the nice looking fire trucks. I think everyone gets a little thrill in a big scene, weather it be a fire, collapse, or MVA. Granted, patients or criminals faces should be covered when you post a photo. We can all learn from photos, maybe someone catches something we did wrong, Granted, it is not good for us to get caught doing something wrong, but we all make mistakes, we are only human. Whether you take pictures of a rollover MVA or a fully invovled fire, both are bad someone could have been injured or memories lost. I say post pictures without the victims faces or information. I was on a scene tuesday night, where I saw at least 6 different people taking pictures, it is what we do. It might not be smart, but we learn from these pictures in traing. I dont know if this makes sense with what I said, but hopefully someone understands that this is just my opinion. The only pictures that I dont like being posted or in the paper, is that of a brush fire, there is always that one photo that shows a firefighter lighting brush on fire. Granteed he is killing the live stuff or making a fire line. But that is one thing that bugs me, I think it makes us look at little bad. Also, if you dont know what your fire department's rules are on taking photos at a scene, dont take one untill you ask. This is all.

Thomas