I don't think our code of ethics demand anything, I think they /allow for/.

--Matt


On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Aaron McCaleb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 16:09, Matt Simmons
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>
> It's one thing to leave room for personal ethics.  It's entirely
> another for the ethics of our professional organization to demand that
> all members stand on principle, even if it's in front of a firing
> squad.  I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground between the two.
> I'm saying it's a dangerous path to try to navigate and as such is a
> path best avoided, at least for now.
>



-- 
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/

Reply via email to