Are Departments Enacting Policies To Stifle Bloggers?

[efdcapt115 1,511]

In the past couple of days I've had a couple of conversations with firefighters from both the career and volunteer sides of the business, and came away from both with very similar information. Apparently many departments are enacting IT policies which strictly prohibit active members from posting ANY information about their department on the internet, without expressed or written approval from the chief of department, or somebody else designated by the department. So basically, if you want to write anything about your department, you have to submit it to the chief for approval.

I was quite surprised to hear this not once, but twice now in recent days. Is this some sort of trend taking hold in fire departments?

And now the argument against such a policy. Why on good earth would a fire department want to throttle down the healthy sharing of information from/between firefighters? The situation as described made me think of that famous quote on the bust statue in front of Faber College, "Knowledge Is Good." (from the movie Animal House for some of the younger members) I mean how freaking ridiculous, I mean just when you think they can't get any more ridiculous, I mean.....C'mon!

Are people in power so insecure they are now afraid of what the firefighters are thinking and saying to each other in the informal settings of a website? Fire related websites are tools of empowerment for those in the business. There has been such a movement toward the sharing of information, sharing of opinions, support for each other, support for each others departments, sharing of photography of equipment, tips on fireground operations, safer tool handling, special hazards one might encounter with particular vehicles if they become involved with fire, literally the list of positives for information sharing is endless.

And now comes word from very smart and knowledgeable firefighters that the effort is on, in a backward and FUBARed way, to start suppressing what firefighters can and cannot say; well no actually it's worse. They are saying "we don't want you saying anything."

What is this now, technology is here to help everybody, and departments want to enact a new DARK AGE? Shhhhhh.....

I was wondering because there's been a few different threads where the commentary was noticeably light, and normally we'd have no shortage of guys wanting to get in on a potentially hot discussion. But now it makes sense what's been going on. And it's a damn shame. It's a shame that firefighters are being intimidated to not say anything, not even talk about firefighting in a generic sense without naming names or departments. We've always done a pretty good job at maintaining the etiquette, the protocols if you will. There's an unwritten line, well it used to be unwritten apparently, but we knew how far we could take things. Nobody is out there blogging with the intent of embarrassing a department. And yet now comes word of "the era of new censorship".

I think it's a terrible direction for departments to be moving in. Let's hope it's the exception and not the rule. Just goes to show you, give a fire department a way to screw up a sure thing, a positive learning tool, the GREATNESS of the internet, an unprecedented tool that is helping departments, not hurting them, and they'll figure out a way to do it.

Edited October 16, 2011 by efdcapt115

[tbendick 27]

FDNY had a very restricted policy at one time however Some ems union members took them to court and won. Free speech. Now there the restrictions that cover HIPAA type stuff and if you try to represent the department.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

FDNY had a very restricted policy at one time however Some ems union members took them to court and won. Free speech. Now there the restrictions that cover hippa type stuff and if you try to represent the department.

Roger that. But the thing about it is I think many members are interpreting such rules to mean they shouldn't be writing about firefighting period. Even if the department enacts this type of policy, as long as you don't make representations that you're speaking for the department, and to play it even safer you simply stay away from mentioning your department in any way; "my department does it this way" type comments, nobody can tell you that you can't write your opinion about, say a particular fireground evolution, the usefulness of the Bangor Ladder, or whether the Detroit Door Opener worked better than a hydra-ram.

I think the policies coming out are having a temporary chilling effect on some peoples' posting habits. But the best way to address that imo, is to get it out in the open and let guys hear that policy or no policy, it doesn't mean suddenly guys have to give up posting. Be careful about what and how you say it yes, but quit posting? Hell no. It's better to talk about it I think, than to just have the rumors out there, the uncertainty.

[wraftery 1,275]

We should bring back the Bangor Ladder because it takes 6 men to raise it and that would mean we would need 6-man Ladder Companies.

The Detroit Door Opener will make a comeback, too. It will be renamed the Motown Doorknob Remover and Terrazzo Cracker.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

We should bring back the Bangor Ladder because it takes 6 men to raise it and that would mean we would need 6-man Ladder Companies.

The Detroit Door Opener will make a comeback, too. It will be renamed the Motown Doorknob Remover and Terrazzo Cracker.

Let he who is without wit be the first to not get it.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Our FD is looking at a more spelled out IT policy that basically will provide grounds for discipline should an employee make disparaging comments about the citizenry or the department that are not actual issues for the good of all. We don't feel there is a specific issue but the number of "issues" and arguments over Facebook and other social media posts dictate that we're are prepared vs. arbitrary when or if something controversial is posted by one of our members. We've always tried to "punish the act/actor" not the media, but our last official IT policy was in 1998, basically the stone-age of the internet. A good small group discussion for the firehouse is the Freedom of Speech, which most people do not fully understand, especially as it pertains to public employees. Our goal is not to stifle the excellent medium the internet provides to discuss tools, tactics, or other beneficial topics, but to ensure our people understand the public nature of their posts and how negative commentary can be bad for them and the FD.

[Dinosaur 844]

Fire service administrators are going to get themselves in trouble with such broad and draconian policies. There is freedom of speech and as indicated with the results of the NYC EMS lawsuit, the courts will probably not side with the FD in these cases.

What do we have to hide? Why are we so closed-minded?

I have every right to criticize, praise, discuss, or simply talk about whatever I want, even my fire department. Unless I do it on a FD computer or while on FD time, they have no right to tell me I can't.

Stupid, narrow-minded policies.

[v85 212]

I think that there are a few reasons for these policies including:

1. Fear of anything new (ie. 200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress)

2. Concerns over the release of HIPAA or other sensitive information

3. Concerns over the release of "sensitive" (read embarrassing) information (unqualified leadership, outdated equipment, poor tactics, fiscal mismanagement, etc)

If I had to rank the concerns it would be number 3, then number 1; but number 2 is the excuse they use when they are called out for 1st ammendment problems.

[x635 4,066]

Great post, George!

I want to add a ton from my perspective, but I'm limited on time tonight.

[wraftery 1,275]

Let he who is without wit be the first to not get it.

He who laughs last took longer to get it.

[NWFDMedic 58]

I think a lot of the concern is that Joe Firefighter may not know exactly what is sensitive information and what isn't. In this day and age where everyone has a lawyer on retainer, a simple comment may put a FD at risk. While FD's should be at risk if they're doing things wrong, they don't need the legal hassle of a nonsense lawsuit caused by someone's comment on Facebook. Also, some fire scenes are also crime scenes and an innocent comment may hinder prosecution of those responsible for the incident. Even response tactics should probably be kept "in the industry" today due to the threat of terrorism and not discussed on an open forum. General training issues brought forth as hypothetical situations can be a great benefit to the fire service and our continuing education but the discussion of a particular incident in a public forum can be very dangerous.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I think a lot of the concern is that Joe Firefighter may not know exactly what is sensitive information and what isn't. In this day and age where everyone has a lawyer on retainer, a simple comment may put a FD at risk. While FD's should be at risk if they're doing things wrong, they don't need the legal hassle of a nonsense lawsuit caused by someone's comment on Facebook. Also, some fire scenes are also crime scenes and an innocent comment may hinder prosecution of those responsible for the incident. Even response tactics should probably be kept "in the industry" today due to the threat of terrorism and not discussed on an open forum. General training issues brought forth as hypothetical situations can be a great benefit to the fire service and our continuing education but the discussion of a particular incident in a public forum can be very dangerous.

This is exactly why we're amending our policies. To ignore this totally will catch some FD's off guard when they thought people should know better and find out they don't. Certainly this does not warrant the all out bans or overly restrictive policy, but clearly there are significant gaps between what some people think is acceptable and what isn't. Those who think they can post whatever they want from their private computer while off duty may find themselves unemployed with the court not hearing the case. Again, know what you know, not what you think you know.

Edited October 17, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[38ff 250]

NWFDMedic hit it right on the head. All you need is some well meaning probie to take a picture of an extrication call that shows the patients, he posts it on his facebook and then a lawyer finds out, and here you go Mr Commissioner, your HIPAA lawsuit. All because a probie that hasnt been in your dept more than 6 months wanted to be the cool guy showing off to his firends that he was at the scene of the "big one" and is now costing you thousands in legal fees.

A smart policy is in order. The internet is a great tool to be used in information sharing, but some people dont know what is OK to share and whats not. Educate them, enact smart policies and keep them up to date.

Stifling is not good, but "post whatever you want" is not good either. Find a happy meduim, make a policy, and make sure people understand it.

I dont think any of us want this in our depts, nor would we want to be the parents. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/19/earlyshow/main6971385.shtml

Edited October 17, 2011 by 38ff