> But knowledge of all relevant laws does imply at least some obligation for > compliance.
I disagree, particularly in cases where the laws are considered unjust by the citizen in question. LOPSA can take any stance it wants, but in the end, it boils down to the fact that system administrators are living people and citizens of their countries. When given an order to commit an act you deem contrary to your ethics, you have the choice to perform the work, as ordered, or not. That simple binary choice is inconsiderate of outcomes and laws. You can do it, or you can not do it. The reasons are irrelevant to the fact that those are the options. If an administrator were to be given an order they deemed to be unethical, and they performed it, would they be considered unethical, or would they be considered unethical if they recused themselves and didn't perform the work? I refuse to interpret the Code of Ethics in such a way that would condemn a fellow sysadmin for being given such an order irrespective of their choice. There is no reason for LOPSA to meddle in personal ethics. As system administrators, our code of ethics provides leeway for the exercise of them through voicing our biases, and opting not to perform tasks we find distasteful. If there is no option for the exercise of personal ethics (of which we, as an organization have no control), then the Code of Ethics itself should be amended or abandoned by the organization, because if it isn't, it certainly will be by the individuals. --Matt On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Doug Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/31/2011 3:58 PM, Aaron McCaleb wrote: >> Yes, Matt. But the second item after that is: >> >> "I will educate myself and others on relevant laws, regulations, and >> policies regarding the performance of my duties." >> >> Though I will admit it doesn't explicitly state that "I will comply >> with all relevant laws, regulations and policies." But knowledge of >> all relevant laws does imply at least some obligation for compliance. >> >> We cannot presume that our code of ethics exempts us from compliance >> with locally applicable law, statutes and regulations. That is a very >> dangerous line to walk. Even a refusal to take action can constitute >> a violation of local laws, regardless of whether we recuse ourselves >> or not. > Especially when the laws are made by the people who are asking you to > shutdown the Internet (authoritarian regime), and more than your job may > be at stake, in some cases... In many/most countries in this world, the > Internet is controlled carefully by the country. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
