Ethics

You're on the right track, James. IT folks seem to be struggling
with the ethics issue. Their decisions on what is right or wrong
are not unlike everyone else in the orgaization. They need to
step away from their cubicles and try to understand that "doing
the right thing" does not differentiate based on what division
one is assigned to.

On a somewhat related matter, IT staffs have a special
responsibility for confidentiality because of their access to
personal and private information as they carry out their
responsibilities for monitoring and controlling use of electronic
resources. Thus, they need to adopt a very strick code of ethics
on how they treat sensitive information, how they control
unauthorized release of personal information, how they combat
gossip among their colleagues, etc.

Good Luck,

Jan Bohren

I totally agree with bartlmay. I feel ashamed to be called an IT Pro, with some of the contributions I have just read! There was a time when pride in your work ment something, now it seems to me, that it is just dog eat dog. Not such a nice place to live. I love to solve my users problems and point out the weaknesses in their systems. I too get more from word of mouth that I could ever make from a quick rip off. Lets have more pride in ourselves and in our profession.

I would not disagree that the statement of the Golden Rule is simplistic but I believe you've used a great deal of sophistry to capitalize on that fact and ignore the broader implications of personal responsibility that putting it into use would require.

While also true that one may not always know what others would want, it seems very unlikely that anyone would enjoy an act of thievery performed against them. But to acede to your point for the sake of argument, does the fact that someone would not object to an act performed against them that you yourself would object to obligate you to do that very thing? Of course not, and there's no word for that other than silly.

So, while one can't always know what someone else wants, one can, in the end, be true to his own heart.

Cagedmonkey and T.mason said it all. The ASQ statment is excellent and a guideline to anyone involved in IT or anything else for that meatter. IT people are service providers not Gods or judges. They provide a service to their users and as such must advise their supervisors or users when they identify "what they consider" is incorrect usage or problems within their domain. The key is communication not cutting someone off at the knees.

Well, at the very least such a documented ethical statement can lead to some worrisome ethical binds if followed to the letter.

Let's look at

[i]"Will be honest and impartial, and will serve with devotion my employer, my clients, and the public.[/i]

along with

[i]"Will use my knowledge and skill for the advancement of human welfare, and in promoting the safety and reliability of products for public use."[/i]

This could lead to an ethical bind if the client's goals or clients products are, by design, intended to harm the public or inherently flawed to the point of being harmfull. At which point you cannot be devoted to the client and serve the public welfare at the same time.

and, if one does find oneself in such a position where a flaw is found in a client's product that could harm many people and the client ignores your advice and does not publish it we find ourselves in this conundrum...

[i]"2.4 Will not disclose information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former employer or client without his consent."[/i]

Thus you fail to serve the public welfare if you keep the client confidence.

Are such problems common when trying to combine capitalism with ethical behaviour?

I made the mistake of not reading the act myself and posted a comment from the thread that lead to this thread being created.

See my prior post on this:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=167395&messageID=1709844

I agree with you, and can't figure out how the other person decided that this specific law blocks the use of open wireless ports.

Chas

Is it ethical to defend oneself, even if it harms another?

Well, those in the "do no harm" camp would have to state that it would not be ethical.

I, being in the "do the least harm" camp would say that it's ethical to defend oneself by way of the following propositions.

I, being an ethical agent within society, am attacked by someone.

I can presume that because this person attacked me the attacker is not being an ethical member of society.

Since this person is not ethical the attacker is more likely to harm others in the future if I do not stop him or her.

Thus, it is more likely to cause more harm if I do not defend myself than if I did.

(when one adds the fact that other lives depend upon my survival then the argument is even more simple, but this argument does not need such suppositions).

I've noticed that every ethical standards document issued by businesses or trade organizations seem to put the nonliving entity ahead of the living entities in prioritization of ethical responsibility.

In other words, such documents create potential ethical binds by making one's ethics more beholden to the corporation/business than to the individual/public.

I was wondering if this was commonly or always the case when trying to combine capitalism with ethics such as this?

[i]edit[/i] I suppose I could ask it this way...

Some here have proposed that ethics has nothing to do with capitalist pursuits, that there is no room for ethics in the business equation, whatever earns a profit is fair game.

Is this a true supposition or a false one?

I find comments like "If the users are too stupid to know better, I'm taking advantage of them - no problem. In fact, I might even change some settings if I feel like it." very disturbing.

I have found that the younger generation coming into IT 20-30 or so yrs old tend to have this attitude. I personally am 31 and have found it asstonishing at how quickly this attitude emerged in IT. They are the "Time Out" generation that has never had real consequences for their actions.

Most users have just the basics when it comes to setting things up and it is IT's duty as responsible and ethical "business" people to help out our fellow man to improve and secure.

People who pray on the unknowing to take advantage of a situtaion are doomed to failure and they will pay the price in their business and personal lives with attitudes like that.

Since most of IT can get at very sensitive information. It is important that IT Departments be ethical. That is when working in an office, igonore any open files or documents on the desk. Never snoop in directories or emails. When working in sensitive areas, make an effort to immediately anything that is seen.

I have worked in IT for over 20 years and I have always applied the above-mentioned tenants.

I'm a former CIO for one of the top 20 agencies in the Navy (called echelon II's). I teach leadership and ethics to Minnesota college seniors now as a part of their pre-commissioning training.

Your question could be the source of a course all in itself. Unfortunately, in a sound bite world trying to live in "e-time" nobody wants to work through a solution...they want a checklist, or the snapshot answer.

This is one of the reasons some older employees fear or don't use tech as much as they could. They miss the slower pace of human interaction...the days when you had to look someone in the face to tell them off, not send out a flaming e-mail or leave a snippy voice mail. Made things more civil (usually) in the workplace. Unfortunately, we won't be turning the clock back to Luddite times.

Your question has several threads. The folks who comment on using other users' stupidity won't be swayed by anything they read here. They are the "cut you off on the freeway, flip you off, car alarm at 3am, talk on their cell phones in a loud voice in public, throw trash out the window, then complain how the country has gone to hell in a handbasket" types. There have always been jerks in our country, God willing, there will always be jerks...at least we have a great country for them to complain about.

Since there is NO universal rule, no nation wide law on privacy, the folks who said "first, do no harm" probably have a pretty good start on arriving at their solution. If you are in a public place where there is a reasonable expectation of someone accessing and using Internet access like a coffeeshop or airport, you are on pretty firm moral ground using basic service. However, if you were to start doing something you wouldn't (shouldn't) do at work (download porn, intrude into the network, insert viruses, etc)then you start rapidly into the death spiral of non-ethical conduct, even though those networks may have been left open for your use. (I'd say common sense use, but common sense isn't always common these days).

When it comes to a business lobby or non-public venue, I'd say that you are on pretty shaky ground. Just because your neighbor leaves the keys in her car, or his front door unlocked doesn't give you the right to take a tour.

I liked the comment about what your parents might think...I use that a lot with my young adults. However, I also point out that if you face a moral conundrum there is a pretty good test - can you live with the outcome if it turned out to be wrong? Example: Speed limit on the beltway in D.C. is 55mph. However, traffic (when it moves) is often 80+mph. Someone driving at 55mph is a hazard to themselves and others, even though they are morally correct (ever heard of "dead wrong?". So, most folks drive at the rate that traffic goes. Doesn't make it right, and a policeman will occasionally stop someone. The "I was only following traffic" doesn't work, as you WERE breaking the law. So, at some level, you had made a decision (conscious, or unconsciously) that you could live with the consequenses of a ticket and higher insurance if you got caught. (Yeah, I know that some folks never think...no example is perfect)

Bottom line: What would your tombstone say if you died tonight? Hero, or jerk? We all want it to be "hero", but many figure they have years to correct the jerk in themselves. (see cell phone, driving habits above)

No easy answers in complex times. The "random acts of kindness" movement of a few years ago was an attempt to get back some humanity. If you live your life the way you want to be treated, you might get your toes stepped on occasionally, but you have a lot easier time looking at yourself in the mirror and your employees in the eye.

Personally, I'd rather have my people mad at me for telling them the truth than mad at me for finding out I was lying to them. Goes for networks, too.

Ethics are not rewarded in this world, but in the after life. If people don't believe in the after life, then naturally they have little reason to act ethically. Cultures, religions and value systems such as standards and guidelines are man-made creations which are seldom endorsed or practised in a world where kids were taught to gain at others' expenses, adults were encouraged and at times forced to compete ruthlessly, corporations and enterprises were managed to cut costs and increase the bottom line without regard to any but the most unacceptible rules. It is impossible to site role models for ethical conduct, but it is also impossible not to see rampant and outrageous rewards for so many cultprits who "beat the system" - meaning in most cases, act unethically. Are ethics any different between IT and any other trade such as accounting ? I don't think so. Where do we start and how ?
My attempt to define ethics :
Ethics is a flexible set of standards and guidelines for evaluating the results of one's actions, direct or indirect, which would attribute to a person's worthiness to be at peace with oneself when life on earth is ended, and all tallies of these results will factor in the quality of one's after life, if there is one.

I have heard over and over that yes there is a ethical responsibility to not use a network because it is open. Blah Blah Blah. According to TheChas he states that

"Under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 United States Code ? 1030), such hijacking constitutes unlawful "access," which is the first element of the crime."

I would like to provide you with the complete reading of that US Code. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html Legal regulation. According to the legal code there is nothing in it to support the illegal use of any network other than a Government or Banking institution with the intent to fraud! I think that alot of you should read this due to that fact. As a representative who works closely with the Government it is my repsonsibility to know and understand what laws and guidelines are. Ethically and morally are we doing something wrong? Ethics are something that are instilled in us when we are born, one person right may be another persons wrong and vice versa. Case in point, the LAW is what guides us to what is right and wrong. Ethics excluded period! Let me set a scenario. If a penny is on the ground and you pick it up, is it ethically wrong for you to do that??? How do you know a person is not missing that penny??? How do you know that penny does not have a sentimental value to it??? The law of the Ocean are simillar to the USDOJ statute. Any abandoned ship in the ocean can be claimed because the property of the ocean lies in no-ones jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction of the Airwaves below a certain frequency are no-one's jurisdiction and therefor free for everyone's use. Should you decide to freely use that airwave, you are excerciseing your rights, the same as everyone elses rights and not infringing on anyone elses rights. If we as IT individuals are concerned about our freedoms, including the freedoms of speech and communication including free speech on the internet, then it is our job to make sure we understand the laws as they apply and not try to make ethical judgements to impede on someone rights to life, liberty, and justice for all.

I agree with about 99% of what you said, but my reading of that law, and the Federal training that I had on it don't agree with your assessment. The law is pretty specific on fraudulant activities, but I'm not sure that has been expanded to cover wireless network access.

However, I'm not a lawyer by trade, and cyberlaw changes every day. I did a brief re-read of the law before I read this, but didn't look up any associated cases. Like I said...we are in violent agreement on most of your post.

...but I was a government CIO. I believe your interpretation is the one we learned when I got my CIO cert, and that was the best cyberlaw tng available 2 yrs ago.

Do unto others, as you would have done unto you.
>> An eye for an eye like the Palestines and the Israelis ? Jesus said, love thy foes, for it is no reward in loving thy friends.

a good transaction(sale, contract etc.) has tangible benefit for both sides.
>> mutual benefits are good, but are they related to ehtics in a non-business related context ?

Never write something you wouldn't want published in a newspaper.
>> Many white lies are published all the time. Sometimes they form the basis for wars.

Never do something you would be embarrased to admit in front of your mother.
>> Some if not all people confess their most unethical sins to their mothers, directly or indirectly.

and what do they do for you and the others around you ?

and what do they do for you and the others around you ?

which voice do you listen to ? how do you know if it is good or bad ? the struggle between good and evil is the everlasting being since Genesis, in the beginning there were no rules except one - depending on what you believe in.

In the case of a home customer on broadband with WAP. If someone next door hooks into his network and starts downloading stuff, it is the home customer that is held liable. It's in most every ISPs AUP(Acceptable Use Policy) that they are responsible for the integrity and security of any device accessing the ISPs service.
I work for an ISP and we've seen many of these. Usually it's someone hit with a DMCA abuse where we disable their modem due to a complaint raised by the copyright holder.
The reason is simple, if I'm hooking into someones WAP, how are you going to find *and prove* that I'm the one who accessed it? I can very easily change the MAC on my wireless card as often as I'd like, so logs would be useless. Unless someone got a search warrant for my machine, they would never be able to prove a thing. And even then, it's highly doubtful they could ever prove that my machine connected to their WAP. Hence, it's the responsibility of the person with the WAP to lock it down. That's how the ISPs think, FYI.
Corporations fall under different laws, and accessing their network *could* infringe on many laws. There's just too many gray areas right now.

Bravo!

28% of 70 Million children below age 18 from single parent homes?40% of those from never married homes
Additional 4% of the 70 million raised by grandparents

?so, 1 in 3 were ?latch key? kids in the 80's and 90's. This is the generation that is entering the workforce now.

Their ethics comes from MTV, VH 1, and other teens and TV...quality programming like Desperate housewives, Fear factor, and the Apprentice...showing that all you have to do is screw someone else to achieve your own happiness. After all, who cares as long as you're Paris Hilton rich and thin?

This is why we have to teach ethics starting from day 1 in the miltary. People always think that ethics is for the "other guy".

Personally, I'm scared that we are headed towards a Roman Circus type ending in a few years.

Finding a wallet on the floor or some free samples (like a free cup of a new brand of coffee during a promotion) is quite neutral and is relegated to your own whims on how to deal with them. Stealing, on the other hand, is definitely unethical as is intentional schemes to shaft others for unearned gains such as the Enron scandal, which are outright unethical and criminal. Unfortunately, many cultures or even religions condone these kinds of thinking and behaviour as ways to survive in the world. It is truly amazing...

Ethics are a very personal thing. For your own benefit the question "What would *insert role model of choice here* do?" is the best guidance.

Defining ethics for an entire industry or class of professionals can be very tricky and would probably end up needing a regulatory/licensing board like the Medical Examiners or Legal Bar to ensure that everyone is following the same set of ethics. Definitley not something I want to see.

Morality and ethics may not be a firm foundation to live by, there are many things we do not and cannot comprehend, in these cases we have to place ourselves in the hands of God, and follow your conscience accordingly.

"Just machines to make big decisions...
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision."

I guess Donald Fagan was wrong.

But I gotta live like he isn't.

The codes of conduct presented here is an implementation of the set of guiding principles behind these codes. There is no guarantee that by following these codes of conduct, ethics are preserved, contrarily, skilful powerbrokers and manipulators often exploit and twist the letters of the law and bend these codes of conduct to their advantage in achieving their goals which can often go against the spirit of these codes, which is the ethics.

I'm looking for an "ethical" solution. My first thought was to try to find some way to send a message to the WAP to notify its operator that its service was unsecured.

Alternately, if people purchased wireless hubs, then they presumable registered them with the manufacturer. Could the manufacturers issue alerts and instructions to their registered customers to secure their devices?

Stealing is forbidden and punishable, even if forgiven. The problem is not in the enforcement of the principle, but the lack of conviction in the people to follow it. IT is not in the business of establishing ethics, but one good deterrant which encourage the abiding to this principle would be the establishment and enforcement of a system which would capture and adjudicate, on a continual and fair basis, thefts. On a greater scale, software, even media piracy is rampantly thrashing this ethic of Not Stealing, it appears that our system of enforcing this ethic is failing us because of the prohitive cost and the difficulties in executing the system. A realistic measure, which is gradually being phased into our society, is the increased spending on security in organizations as well as homes. It is a hope that people will consciously stop stealing - a historical failure - or develop cost effective methods such as biometrics to access and secure assets which can be adopted broadly.

I was once told "Integrity is what you would do when nobody is looking." Clearly we have a number of people who have little or no integrity (and no - I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular :)).

The problem with people with little integrity is that writing down an ethical standard does little or no good. They will ignore it. For those who have a high standard already - the written standard doesn't change anything because they are already doing it.

Personally, I agree with the Golden Rule and try to go a little above. One last thing - the 1st Corollary of the Golden Rule - As you do unto others, so shall it be done unto you.

""If the users are too stupid to know better, I'm taking advantage of them - no problem. In fact, I might even change some settings if I feel like it."

It has nothing to do with stupidity. That's why they have those neat little 800 numbers listed on the box. If you have questions please call us...

It's laziness and not wanting to read the included instruction. And there's nothing wrong screwing with someone if they were lazy.

If I set up a bot incorrectly because I wanted to be lazy and not read the enclosed documentation and I got hacked beause of an opendoor, well than that's my fault and I deserved it.

;p

As a senior IT manager I will not hire anyone I do not trust. As a senior business area leader I will not have anything to do with a group of people or organization I don't trust.

I think my reply title says it quite clearly. If we want to be taken seriously as a profession then we have ethics. Otherwise as individuals or as a group we have no place in any business or organization, period!

As a reference to look into further, the CIPS group in Canada has a code of ethics built into their professional designation.

Was your point that it unethical, even criminal, to steal stuff like bandwidth. Absolutely!
Was your point that ignorance is a defence (the "What do you mean by people might keep money they find in the street?" defence.
To much of this is very socially corrosive as it leads to the government regulating and policing personal and private behaviour, exclusion of minorities, resentment, religious ferver, heroin addiction (just checking to see if you are still with me) terrorism etc.

That they have an open WAN?

If I go into a business and find I'm able to log on to their network through an unsecured wireless connection that is an easy matter as I'm being paid to look for vunerabilities but what happens if you stumble across one that you are not paid to look for?

So far I've been lucky and any that I have found have been in adjacent business so a quick walk in and talk about the problem is an easy fix but even still I do get some strange looks from the office staff when I ask to speak to someone from IT. Of course if it is a small business with no IT staff I just ring them up and ask are they aware that they have an unsecured WAN but even that is risky at times as the wish to shoot the messenger is still a strong measure and the people do not want to believe that they have a problem as they followed the book so it must be right!

Col :)

Maybe that is the reason.

It was not me downloading it Your Honor, it must have been someone else via my AP!

I'm sure thats what bush was thinking...

Per a conversation with other security professionals, members of the FBI have stated that having an open wireless network is no different than placing a live ethernet jack in the parking lot where anyone can get to it. With this in mind, so long as you are not modifying data on the network or making changes to equipment that does not belong to you, it is perfectly acceptable to use the "free" services.

Do you see actually read the book or even if they do just how much is devoted to security?

I've seen a lot of WAP's installed in business without the IT departments knowledge and in small business a single worker can come in after hours throw a wireless router in the ceiling connected to a cheap or even stolen LT that is then connected through an unsecured line to the main router/hub, remember this is small business I'm talking about here.

There however is one saving grace like in a case of downloaded Kiddy porn if it isn't on any of the computers in on the network and none of the computers that may have access to the network the business is protected over here at least but even still the time taken to investigate is very damaging to the business.

With the advent of the cheap Wireless routers which do not even come with a printed manual just a PDF file on a CD these very rarely even get looked at in a domestic situation as they are told by the person selling it just how easy it is to setup but none of the disadvantages are even mentioned as after all the salesperson is only interested in selling not making sure that the customer knows how things work or for that matter the law either.

I've done consultancy work for a lot of small business who have been sold on wireless networking because it is so much cheaper to initially setup but when I actually run through the costs with them as to what is really required they chose the wired network every time.

Unfortunately not every one is as savvy and there are all too many installations that just have no security at all. But they are sold these things as a way to save money and are never told of any security or legal issues at all.

Col

I appreciate your input on "objectivization." I think that is quite true.

Upon reflection, this is a corollary (but summarized in my words) to what others (and also you) have posted: "Think of others first, self afterwords."

IMO, doing so, is ethical. The question, then, of: Are we being ethical then comes down to: Are we striving to our maximum in always applying this maxim?

Wrt posts on the two variants of ethical definition a) do no harm (and its complement: do good always) and b) do least harm (and its complement: do good most of the time), my feeling is that a) is (the pinnacle of being) ethical, and b) is we should strive towards 'State A', as we are not perfect.

However, if we strive to our maximum capacity, then I feel that we are ethical.

The question then becomes: Are we striving to our maximum capacity? Are we being honest to ourselves?

Other TechRepublic forum readers have also alluded to these valid questions.

They all seem to be tied together in defining how we can live ethically.

Finally, with respect to unsecured WAPs. I feel that it is intrusion, thus unethical, unless you are being plainly (and forthcomingly) provided with that connectivity. For example (free) at a public library or at an airport lounge, or that you have paid for (and thus forthcomingly from the other party been given express permission) to connect to the hotspot.

But I still do worry about finding WAP's in a business where I'm not employed to test or fix. Sure I attempt to contact the It staff as at least I know there they will understand and be grateful, but I never consider telling the owner/CEO or whatever as they tend to shoot the messenger.

It hardly promotes a good role in society if the person brings civil charges against you as an IT Professional.

But at the same time I've approached numerous people at home just to let them know that they have open wireless connections broadcasting and these are thankful as they where never told what would be required or that this could happen by the "Ethical" salesperson who in every case is considered as ethical because they gave them a good price for the product.

Col

I have worked with a lot of computer people and have seen things that would curl your toes. At one company here in St. Louis a computer contractor working in another section of the automotive tech help line. He made copies of all the dvds that thier tech use to help customers. These calls cost $75.00 and hour, he was going to sell these dvds. He is in jail now, I do not tell or share information if I am told or if it implied.
A friend told me that he was bored one day and did a wireless sniff and found that two people on his block were using unprotected wireless devices. So he used the password that the devices shipped with to get into them and change the password and shut them down. What some people think is fun or a good idea is what I call unethical.

I believe the poster was being facetious with the statement of "everything is legal until you get caught"....

Someone in my neighborhood has a wide open network. I am attempting to find out who and talk to them about my services. I am willing, at a small price, to help them secure their network.
I only get their network from the front rooms of my house so I don't see their network all the time and haven't caught them online yet.

I only wonder, because the signal is so strong, how many other people might be using what these people are paying for?

That kinda sums it up, I guess, though you make me (as the "they" to whom you refer) sound rather more noble than I'd envisioned. Heh.

By the way, if you're looking for an appropriate pronoun, I'm a "he".

Taking advantage of someone for any reason is unethical. Besides, I have to live with myself. I am also a firm believer in helping my users and yes, even my co-workers (I do not believe that keeping anyone ignorant is job security) to learn and understand whatever they are having a problem with. I cannot begin to tell you how much easier my job is and how much I have prospered because of this philosophy. Yes, I am one of those that if I am under charged I tell the clerk. I take money back to the bank when the atm machine gives me too much. I will even walk all the way back into a store to give the clerk back the pen I walked out with. Not because I am some kind of a saint or that I am afraid that I may get caught, but because I would know what I had done.

I would generally agree that if we want to call ourselves professional, then we get to be bound by professional ethical standards.

Where I see a problem in the particular instance we're discussing is that the whole basis of competition (economic, whatever) is based on outsmarting the opposision to some greater or lesser degree.

I make more on a transaction if I can convince the buyer that the object is worth more than it really is. This is generally accepted. Where then do we draw the line between taking reasonable advantage but not un-reasonable.

In a Customer/Seller relation, this dynamic is always present to some degree.

It's also interesting to distinquish between stupidity, and ignorance. The first may be inherent, the second is a choice. If you choose ignorance, then I think you deserve all you get. Including being sold a lemon if you can't e bothered to learn about what your buying.

Regards

I find that there are admins out there that act in an unethical manner. Many of these individuals tend to be (not all the time) those that got into IT during the boom just by having a certification or "lucking out." I am a member of the IEEE and do my best to work by their code of ethics - which can be found at http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/mainsite/menuitem.818c0c39e85ef176fb2275875bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=corp_level1&path=about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl. Those who act in an unethical manner, in my opinion, should find work in another field and elsewhere.

You really need to stop taking yourself so seriously.

Do you have no sence of humor at all?

You must be the only one out here that didn't look at my post and instantly see that the first two were not to be taken seriously.

Don't worry, be happy.

Joke, it was a joke.
Just following the spin Apotheon had started.

Thanks.

The way sacred tesxts begin:
'Hey Matt, We really need to write down what the boss said so the other diciples who wern't there can reference it. Do you take shorthand?"

Both of these bodies have posted code of ethics. IF you are in the IT world and NOT a programmer [and above] then I strongly suggest you adopt the ethics guidelines at AITP.

The idea that because someone is ignorant of something it is OK to take advantage of them, shows an ignorance of things far more important than knowing something about technical issues. I hope and expect that this is the attitude of only a minority of people. I wonder how these people would look at it if their attorney, banker, doctor, or mechanic has the same attitude and takes advantage of their ignorance in those specialized areas.

A true IT professional looks at his profession and knowledge the same way that other real professionals view theirs and does not take advantage of the "stupid" and rationalize it by saying that it didn't do any "real" harm or "they should know better".

The other day there was a story on the news about a guy who took his PC into a shop to be serviced and the service tech found child porn on his hard drive and called the police. Many pictures of naked kids including videos of his own son.

This obviously raises many ethical questions:
-Did the tech have the right to be looking at the pictures or was he snooping, or was it just an accident? That fact has been omitted from any of the news stories.

-Did the tech have an obligation to report this ?

Obviously from a social perspective there are ethical standards being practiced by this tech. I personally applaud him for making the choice to report it. Apparently he is being charged with 13 counts of sodomy and two counts of encouraging child sex abuse, including the possession of child porn.

In this case it was a matter of judgement that was excerised.

But the code of ethics they provide isn't something that easily applies to everyone.

For instance, it refers to the fellow members, your college, etc. I don't know what the have for bylaws, nor am I interested in pledging to them.

And it doesn't translate well to the example I put out in the original post.

All vendors try to make their TCP/IP a "little" better than the specs. Remember Microsoft's Visual J++ ?

Ignore him. Either he's being intentionally obtuse and basically useless, or he's unable to grasp what you're saying, which is basically useless. Thanks for trying to make the blindingly obvious a little more obvious, though.

most people that do anything "wrong" will try to hid e what they have done.

If you won't tell your grandma what you want to do, you probable shouldn't be doing it.

Not always, but for the most part.

How do you face yourself every morning? If you were my son I wouldn't allow you to have anything to do with yourself!!! The basics of our morals is honesty. God forbid you and those who agree with you become fruitful and multiply. Sorry to seem harsh but please don't lose yourself. If you cause harm to someone, why blame THEM for being stupid IN ASKING YOU FOR YOUR HELP??????

Would anyone consider taking advantage of their own mother, in the same way? We're all ignorant about something. Is that open season to be taken advantage of? My mother trusts me and depends on me to take care of her computer; should I have her buy parts that she can't afford and swap them with a cheap substitute? She's too ignorant to know better.....

In the South Aus Public Service, I'm doing a programming job which I must continue to do even if I get shifted from one location to another. All directed to do etc because I.T. boss can't do the work themselves - lack of resources etc. I do systems support as well to help out the locations where IT take 3 weeks or so to respond to and do something about it - IT get me to do the stuff if I'm at the location because they know I can do it, as I done electronics, security, computers as done for over 20 years. Even in the earlier days, used to install printer networks etc before LAN became popular there for IT but got no recongnition from it. Because of this, the IT Boss has a vendetta against me and works a very tight section - no parties no nice environment and has been there for around 8-10 years. He has become so arragent and some of his staff beleive what he says about me and others who officially do a job not sanctioned by them being very negative. My past bosses give the orders, I do the task because of the lack of response from their sections from some people. Strangley I don't even get any appreciation for notifiying them about firmware upgrades to rectify problems like our IPAQ PDAs which use more power than it should, firmware would fix it - but no one wants to take notice unless it's their idea.

Yes there has been an effort to get me to combine with IT but the boss does not want me there or even at the location I'm at now - even though Directors and Managers know that position must exist.

Never mind about the "stupid users", too many times computers get replaced and masses of information is lost. No room on the network, so they have to save it on the C -drive. User not around because of a meeting? No matter, they assume it's all backed up, ONTO WHAT????? when you have 100's of megs of data and no burner is available. The 15 page ministerial that was done yesterday just disappears! One out of many 100's of mistakes happening like this every year- so how does one tell that section to get with it when you have a stale and arragent IT boss that won't leave for the benefit of the whole department?

The attitudes there from some people (others are really decent people there too) follow the IT bosses flow and the users around are not treated with any respect unless it is in their own interests. I even still have 7 PC's sitting in my room which was due to be installed late last year which everyone is crying out for - waiting for an IT person to come around to do (as instructed this time). New software to be installed a waste of time putting onto a machine that will hopefully be replaced real soon.

If you want attitude analysis in this place, you have a minefield of cr*p happening there - users like managers etc everywhere want to skin the IT boss alive and there is nothing legally we can do about it!

They even let one of "their" favourite non IT staff "pinch a couple of hard drives" for profit use outside the department! This person was caught thought copying software in IT for himself but he gets a little slap on the wrist while other people get the fury for doing the right thing around the place... it's so bizarre there!