Disgusting. The moment it's about exposing their fuck-ups they are all suddenly concerned about everyone's privacy and rights and it becomes "fairly clear".
If the camera is there to catch you, then it's good and you have no right or reason to expect privacy.
We've banned helmet cams for years. It's not about covering anything up, it's about not getting sued for HIPAA violations.
I wear a GoPro at training events, but would never wear one on an actual incident. We often show up in someone's most vulnerable moment. We're there to provide care and compassion. Making a video recording of someone who is sick or injured is neither necessary for their care, or compassionate.
Your argument for compassion and respecting people's vulnerability when providing general emergency services and fire fighting is a good one. I wonder, however, if this case shows that there are different needs for airports and responses to large scale disasters?
A crash site is a hugely complex and chaotic event; wouldn't it make sense to have more data and awareness if that's what cameras can provide? Helmet cams, truck cams could all provide additional data for investigators.
They banned helmet cams for years too. "Banned", in that the rule was apparently widely ignored. Nobody cared until they showed the department in a bad light.
Just because there are good reasons for banning them doesn't mean the reasons for banning them in this particular case are good.
I'd hardly be surprised. The first N articles of policy of any government agency are "In case of trouble, cover your ass."
Everyone involved in this blatant attempt at covering up, not only this error, but all future errors, should immediately lose their job, including ALL (bloated) pension benefits.
If the camera is there to catch you, then it's good and you have no right or reason to expect privacy.
But if it's about catching them, uh-oh!