So if he was working for Blackwater, and Blackwater was slaughtering innocent civilians by the truckload in the deserts of the middle-east, the "professional" thing for him to do is keep the secret?
THAT's the position you think LOPSA should be taking? Screw the moral issues, only focus on the professional ones? That's a completely unrealistic naive way of looking at the world we live in, and, frankly, is a position that would have them losing my renewal funds instead of yours.[1] D [1] And THIS by the way is why I've always said LOPSA can't take on advocacy positions of any sort of political persuasion. The sysadmin community cannot and will not agree on anything, and planting a flag anywhere is just asking for a reduced membership base. On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, Paul Graydon <[email protected]> wrote: > Aloha Ski, > > I've got to say, I was really disappointed in the message put out by the > board. It managed to say basically nothing in a lot of words. I know this > is a complicated situation and one LOPSA should be careful not to fall on any > particular line for, but the statement is far more damaging than valuable. > It is my opinion that LOPSA should release a strong statement condemning the > actions from a professional perspective. > > "System Administrators must make a wide variety of judgment calls that depend > greatly upon the nature of their position. Those judgment calls are dependent > upon the seriousness of the situation and help inform how the illegal or > unethical activity is reported. Some of the reporting considerations include > whether there is an available internal reporting structure, a requirement to > use the internal procedures, or if a higher legal authority is deemed > necessary due to the nature of the report. To again compare to both the > military and clergy situations, they must be prepared for serious > investigation and personal consequences based upon their actions and strive > to not follow something wrong with a wrong of their own." > > That provides absolutely no position from LOPSA as a professional > organisation, yet the position should be abundantly clear. He had a strong > professional obligation not to leak data. SysAdmins generally have all the > keys, all the access to absolutely everything in the company. It's hard to > do our job without it (unless the organisation is of sufficient size). With > that comes a lot of professional responsibility. We have to be trustworthy, > or at best we're doomed to be inefficient and unproductive. > > LOPSA really should have come out with a clear and strong message on that > score, instead you've released something potentially damaging in an attempt > to sit on the fence. If LOPSA as an organisation cannot make a strong > statement on something so blatantly professionally wrong, what else are you > going to fail to make a statement for? It makes me wonder what other > unprofessional conduct you are going to tacitly support? > > Is this the kind of behaviour I want to be financially supporting with my > membership? Right now I don't think it is. My renewal has just gone > through, and I'm not going to outright cancel it but I will be seriously > reconsidering this over the next year. > > > Whether or not Snowden has a moral or ethical responsibility as a citizen of > the United States to divulge the information, that's a whole other rather > complex discussion, and absolutely one that LOPSA should be steering clear > of. It could have made it abundantly clear in its statement that it was > doing so, and why it's not it's place to judge on that. > > For what it's worth I'm inclined to think he should have leaked it, and that > he arguably had a personal, and ethical responsibility to do so. That's a > personal obligation though, not professional obligation. > > Paul > > p.s. > > It's also factually incorrect. > > "Edward Snowden, who worked in the field of system administration, claims to > be a person who passed classified documents to reporters about US > surveillance programs." > > It's a simple fact, not a vague claim. The Guardian and its journalists have > been in contact with him for several months and have been leaking the > information starting last week. They were the ones that then revealed his > identity at his request on Sunday, and released the video interview. It's > not a case of him standing up and saying "Oh oh look at me, I did it", it's > the organisation he gave the information to that did it. > > > On 6/11/2013 7:29 AM, Ski Kacoroski wrote: >> Derek, >> >> Thanks very much for starting the discussion thread on this topic. The >> board has been in active discussions about it also and has posted a >> statement at: >> >> https://lopsa.org/content/lopsa-statement-regarding-system-administrator-eric-snowden >> >> >> We look forward to your comments. >> >> cheers, >> >> ski >> >> On 06/11/2013 09:37 AM, Derek Balling wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Daniel Gilmartin <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I think part of the trust of the public for >>>> systems and network people is that while we are 'good' we are also >>>> neutral, we don't take sides - we make things work and this changes >>>> that notion. >>> >>> If you're working for one of the sides you ARE taking sides. >>> >>> D >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
