Okay here is how I read this:
"The government now wants to LICENSE (REGULATE, TRACK and TAX)
professionals in this industry."
It's just like the Insurance Industry, they have to be "licensed", and there are a
TON of crooks with licenses to sell insurance, but hey...the Department of Insurance
get's their FAT paychecks for doing practically nothing.
Probably a bunch of morons will think this is a GOOD thing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "mht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Crumrine, Gary L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 10:58 AM
Subject: Licensing Information Security Professionals story
> Forwarded from ISN:
>
> Has anyone seen this story??, comments
>
> http://www.ntsecurity.net/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20224
>
> Mark Joseph Edwards
> March 7, 2001
>
> Security is still a red-hot industry, showing no signs of cooling down
> any time soon. Opportunity abounds for security aficionados to niche
> themselves into this exploding market space, as witnessed by several
> new consulting firms that have catapulted themselves into the realm of
> Fortune 1000 clients. But, as with any hot market, we can expect to
> find wolves in sheep's clothing hoping to take advantage of someone.
> If you can't afford well-known and trusted security consultants, who
> do you hire to assist with your needs? How can you adequately and cost
> effectively investigate candidates?
>
> Some security-related professionals, such as gun-carrying security
> guards, are required to obtain training and licensing to ensure
> they're qualified for their jobs. Obviously that's not the case with
> information security, so screening candidates for security-related
> work isn't as easy as hiring an armed security guard, whose
> credentials and capabilities have already been verified to some
> extent. Would licensing information security professionals be a
> benefit to society? Some members of British government certainly think
> so.
>
> On December 7, 2000, a bill was introduced to the British House of
> Lords that proposes that all security consultants receive training and
> be licensed by the government before performing work for outside
> entities. Licensees would include anyone who performs security work
> for a third party. In the case of security consulting businesses,
> licensees would also include anyone in the company that manages all or
> part of the company's operations or its employees. According to the
> bill, the license could cost as much as 36 pounds (about $53 US), and
> licensees would have to undergo a background check to ensure they
> don't have a criminal history. One premise behind the bill is to help
> ensure that unsuitable people don't gain positions of trust in private
> industry. The other premise is to provide a deterrent in the form of
> criminal punishment for unlicensed practitioners and those people who
> hire unlicensed practitioners.
>
> The security industry does need better standards for security
> professionals (not to mention software developers), but I'm not sure
> how I'd react to such a bill if it were introduced into American
> government. Perhaps such standards are better left under direct public
> control, similar to how in America we rely on Underwriter's Labs for
> product safety and certification testing. Can a similar entity suffice
> for information security?
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
