The debate about bodycams on the uniforms of the Berlin fire brigade is not only dividing the emergency services, but also public opinion. While the provocative question of a security collapse in Berlin sounds the alarm, it is worth taking a closer look at the background: what are the real advantages and disadvantages of this technology? The following shows that body cameras are much more than a surveillance tool – they offer decisive advantages in terms of protection, de-escalation and transparency, which can be indispensable in the day-to-day work of emergency services.
The demand that the Berlin fire brigade should hand in their body cameras again is to be critically questioned for several reasons – especially when you consider the broader positive effects that this technology has already achieved in other areas.
Protection and de-escalation
Experience from police work and other institutions shows that body cameras can serve not only as a pure surveillance tool, but above all can also have a preventive effect. Police officers report positive experiences: the cameras help to defuse tense situations because potential attackers are deterred by the permanent recording. This effect could also help to de-escalate conflicts at an early stage in the fire brigade – especially in operations where the situation quickly escalates. Instead of acting as a surveillance tool, body cameras thus offer a protective mechanism for emergency services and citizens involved.
Documentation as a legal basis
In an emergency, the complete documentation of the operational situation provides invaluable added value. Bodycam recordings can help to clarify the course of events retrospectively and serve as evidence in legal disputes. Especially in a work environment in which emergency services are exposed to risky situations on a daily basis, the complete recording of the operational event can benefit not only those involved but also public transparency.
Criticism of the rejection – a change of perspective is needed
The negative attitude of paramedics within the fire brigade may be based on fears that the cameras could be misunderstood as a control mechanism or could impair the relationship of trust with patients. However, it is often overlooked that the actual objective of body cameras – i.e. the protection of all parties involved – is not in conflict with an empathetic and patient-centred approach. Rather, it is necessary to build up a routine in handling the technology during training and deployment in order to avoid misunderstandings and to fully exploit the added value of objective documentation.
Comparison with other areas of application
Systems already established by the police and also by Deutsche Bahn, which use bodycams for de-escalation and as evidence, provide reliable examples of the benefits of this technology. Given that body cameras have been in use in other federal states and in the federal police force for years, the Berlin fire brigade should not be regarded as a special case. A differentiated consideration shows that the advantages – in particular protection and objective documentation – could also clearly prevail here.
Conclusion
Instead of abolishing body cameras because of a predominantly critical attitude within part of the fire brigade, it would be more expedient to invest in better integration and training. The use of body cameras not only offers an important tool for violence prevention and de-escalation, but also ensures that incidents are documented transparently and comprehensibly. This is in the interest of everyone – the emergency services, the citizens concerned and ultimately the judiciary.
Overall, there is a strong case for continuing to use body cameras and developing them in a targeted way, rather than basically taking them off again. A thorough examination of the concerns and a targeted improvement of operational practice could help to ensure that in the future the technology is perceived as a tool that is worthy of protection and not as a means of control.
