> Exactly. In this case, I feel the board would have been better served by not making a statement at all; it's a polarizing issue, and staying silent would have been the better course. People on this list whom I respect greatly have differing opinions on the issue, so there's really *no* statement that would suffice in this situation.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen the Professional argument, along with an acknowledgement of freedom of conscience, but I'm glad that the Board put this out there for a few reasons, primarily to let people know that they recognize that it's an important issue and that it needs discussed. I don't remember a press release anytime recently, and I'm glad they did it. Hopefully good will come of it, even though it wasn't worded as strongly as any one person wanted. --Matt On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Corey Quinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > > > Professionally? Yes. Personally I'd expect that most would find this > morally repugnant, and "vote their conscience" (as esnowden apparently did > in this case), but that doesn't change the professional perspective. > > 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] > > > Potentially. It's a professional organization, so if it's going to take a > position at all, it should be a professional one. > > [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. > > > Exactly. In this case, I feel the board would have been better served by > not making a statement at all; it's a polarizing issue, and staying silent > would have been the better course. People on this list whom I respect > greatly have differing opinions on the issue, so there's really *no* > statement that would suffice in this situation. > > I'm a LOPSA member for a lot of reasons, but "their organizational > perspective on current events" isn't one, ergo ducking and covering in this > case may have been the wiser choice. > > Either way, they'll still get my membership dollars. :-) > > -- Corey > > > > > 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]><[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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
