On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Phil Pennock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is a sysadmin list, and a certain sysadmin has just become > infamous for how he used his privileged access. Yes. It's igniting a discussion that comes up from time to time, namely "who watches the guy with root?" > Irregardless You should feel ashamed for this grammatical error. > of what > many of us feel about his motivations and his duty to his country, and > please let's not turn this thread into a discussion of that, I think > it's "highly likely" that the congresscritters will turn an eye to our > profession and new legislation may be coming in the next couple of > years. > I think this is overly reactionary. Ultimately, keeping the guy with root from reading any of your data is a *hard* problem to solve if you care at all about efficiency. It's also worth pointing that that it's not "Systems Administrators" that are going to be under scrutiny, but also DBAs, systems engineers, some helpdesk folk, etc. I think company policies will change, but I'd be surprised to see if there's any legislative fallout from this directly. > If anyone thinks there won't be any legislative fallout for our > profession from recent events, then I have a bridge to sell you. London > Bridge, brought it with me from the UK. Only two previous owners, yours > for a low price. The problem is, how are laws going to fix this? Policies will change, yes, and if you're a contractor working for the government with a TS clearance, your life is probably about to get a lot more interesting, but I'd be fairly stunned to see Ted Sysadmin down at the local startup seeing any actual changes. I'm hoping I'm not wrong. > I think it would be highly advisable for the Board to seek urgent > clarification over what the boundaries are for what LOPSA can do in its > current form and how a spun-off subsidiary might help or hinder here. > This is always a good idea. :-) > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 > > (3) Corporations, and [...], no part of the net earnings of which > inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no > substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on > propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation > (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does > not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or > distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of > (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. > > "or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation". > > Subsection h follows below, long-lines intact (sorry). > > This is all obviously subject to professional legal interpretation. > Although currently a Software Engineer, there's still a distinct SA bias > to my work and, I anticipate, to my future career. As a member of > LOPSA, given current events, I would very much like the board to > ascertain what the ground rules are and prepare to face new acts or > amendments that come along so that we can respond and try to ensure that > we do not become scapegoats. > > If you have responsibility without authority, you're a scapegoat. > (paraphrasing from memory from Aeleen Frisch's Essential System > Administration). > > -Phil Well said. Y'know, except for using "irregardless" in a sentence above. :-p -- Corey _______________________________________________ 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/
