Wondering at what stage industry associations, user-groups and the like decide that they represent their business sector and the people in it. The Australian Computer Society is a classic in it’s claims:
“The ACS (Australian Computer Society) is the recognised professional association for those working in Information and Communications Technology, seeking to raise the standing of ICT professionals and represent their views to government, industry and the community.
A member of the Australian Council of Professions, the ACS is the guardian of professional ethics and standards in the ICT sector, committed to ensuring the benecial use of ICT for all Australians.”
It’s mostly nonsense as we know but I worry about groups like this sometimes. By way of the name and their marketing, those who don’t know them could mistakingly actually believe they are all these things and make decisions based upon this. Gees, the Government seems to at times. What scares me though is; are the self-appointed “voices” for the industry sufficiently expertised to make and put forward competent positions? We’ve seen in the past that sometimes they’re not.
———————————————————————————————-
Securus Global: IT Security, Penetration Testing, Security Assessments, PCI Compliance, Product Assurance, QualysGuard, Security Strategy, Vulnerability Assessment.
And the discussion moves on:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/acs-to-unveil-professional-indemnity-scheme/story-e6frgakx-1225795650081
Of course when the same people contribute to both discussions, it hasn’t moved “on” – only “elsewhere”.
See you tomorrow!
Hi Phil
I am a paid member of both associations and as such, I am directly supporting those associations. I have also presented before and will present again, not just at association meets but other places (e.g. conferences).
I enjoy security and take a passion in learning more and actively promoting security and trying to provide a different perspective where I can, to try and promote infoSec. I certainly don’t profess to be an expert by any means, but I think I’m more than qualified to give an opinion thats for sure.
But enough about me, lets stick to the issue at hand.
The approach taken by ACS appalling in that it:
a) failed to contribute to security in any way,
b) neglected to more broadly encompass the failings of proposed plan and secondary effects at a policy and technical level that its implementation would cause,
c) lack of appropriate expertise from industry specialists or bodies (aside from one guy from AusCERT).
I agree with your point that IT as an industry is still in its infancy – at least when compared to others. Also that unlike other trades or practises, our qualifications/certifications are more splintered without a wider body governing (e.g. say medicine). So I can appreciate your points on needing an authorised, representative body for the industry. But the ACS isn’t it – they’ve just positioned themselves close to the government and perceived (yes, perceived) as the “defacto” by the public at large. This is an incorrect view which has been deliberately fostered and not one the ACS is trying to correct. That is where the ethical concerns stem from.
Given the absence of an appropriate organisation to represent IT, it comes down to evaluating a combination of factors – no. of members, relevant industry experience (i.e. time served in the trenches), education, certification, contribution back to the public and industry. This should be the criteria behind the definition of industry experts.
And in the case of Information Security at least, ACS are certainly not it!
In all fairness, could the ACS be that body? Possibly. Potentially. But I think the ACS has a _lot_ more work ahead of itself and I have little vested interest in pursuing that movement. Instead I choose to focus my interests on increasing infosec awareness, expanding and sharing knowledge (within/without the industry) and trying to make a difference within my chosen domain specialisation – championing professional associations I think worth of my commitment.
I love the ACS and it is the best association I have been involved with. I don’t know why so much criticism of it. I trust my leadership to do the right thing by me. They are the best and most experienced IT people with years of experience. One day I aim to be a companion or if I am really lucky, a fellow. Only the best can make these levels.
Another little ACS disaster that Philip won’t be talking about – the CIO of the Victorian Police IT department, Valda Berzins, is a Fellow of the ACS.
“VICTORIA Police’s IT department has been exposed by the state’s chief watchdog as a dysfunctional, shambolic unit where taxpayer funds are wasted, government tender guidelines flouted and questionable million-dollar tender deals done.
“In a scathing report tabled in parliament yesterday, Ombudsman George Brouwer said the Business Information and Technology Services Department had grossly inadequate record-keeping, “apparent disregard” for contract processes and should be investigated for the misuse of taxpayer funds.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/vic-police-it-unit-is-shambolic/story-e6frgakx-1225797202208
That’s a pretty good ad for ACS membership, Philip.
If I were Drazen I’d be more careful about allowing defamatory comments to be made on his blog page, especially since pseudonymous ones will be ascribed to him.
Defamatory!! Phillip Phillip Phillip, you are joking arent you, please tell me you are..
Isn’t that standard lawyer speak for someone calling a spade a spade?
It’s a sad relection on the ACS in that almost every net news site or blog in Australia that mentions the ACS carries one sided discussions like this one. The ACS would be busy taking everyone to court. Anyone not on that list ACS?
Hello Phillip,
Yes, running a site like this that allows for open discussion does open me up to potential legal issues such as those you mention. My policy as stated before is to remove posts that I think may be defamatory or offensive to individuals.
Individuals can contact me at anytime and have in the past in regards to “questionable” posts directed at individuals.
I am not sure anything in this thread is defamatory but I am no lawyer and there is a question also in my mind as to whether the ACS itself can stop opinion(s) as expressed here (not being “individuals”). I welcome your input – whether here or personally to me in an email or phone call.
I thought this thread had moved on to other sites but it keeps coming back to life.
DD
The other mark of a professional society is that it has a disciplinary procedure by which members who do the wrong thing can be brought to account.
Philip, if you think that drawing attention to Berzins’ ACS standing is defamatory, please file suit. I would welcome the opportunity to have you answer questions in court.
As you know, Drazen would be required to give you my identity.
If you take offence at the extract from The Australian, then you could sue News Ltd too.
Phillip
Just curious but what would be grounds for you to take disciplinary action against Berzins and, if so, what would the potential scope of that action be?
As Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee it would not be proper for me to respond, JT, in case someone does file a complaint.
So how about a hypothetical situation in which a member commits an unethical business act? What are the sorts of sanctions that the ACS can impose?
The link is broken.
Phil @ ACS:
So… you’re going to try to make us all carry professional indemnity. Suppose we already carry it. I guarantee my policy covers more than yours will (PL/PI/products combined) and for a higher cover so will my current, long-established policy count or will I have to carry yours too?
And $1 says ACS is making money of some sort (or in-kind) on their current insurance scheme. Care to explain?
For that matter too frequently my clients require being named as a party on the policy. It’s hard enough getting my broker and the insurer to deal with that.
Seriously ACS – we’re all doing fine without your “help” thank you. Like everyone seems to be saying… stop acting representative for all of us when your members make up only a tiny percentage of professionals.
Posted response re: meeting ACS here:
http://beastorbuddha.com/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=232&page=0#msg926
Still here and respectfully holding opinion but more aware of ACS.
We WERE genuinely interested in DD’s thoughts, and were grateful that he took the time to come in and talk to us. The better we understand where our critics are coming from the better we can change to meet them if we think there’s a valid point to be made, and DD made a number of valid points that will inform our ongoing reshaping.
The outcome of that exercise will become more public toward the middle of next year.
By that I mean latching on to this or that latest, most innovative idea that some self styled money making guru has put out in the hope it’ll go viral and make them a lot of money off the backs of all the headless chickens who will follow them blindly down a blind alley. Its a shame but a truism nonetheless that people will follow where someone they see as an expert leads. Even if they lead them to certain disaster, which is what most of the gurus tend to do to their flocks.
The trick is to recognize a shadow when you see it!
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com