The gov does indeed listen. If you apply as a (IT) skilled migrant you will need to join ASC and have them assess your worthiness.
Besides issuing these letter of worthiness I have never heard of them doing anything besides lining their pockets…

We haven’t survived for more than 45 years by being completely irrelevant, but it’s true that only in the more recent past have we changed to reflect the much broader base of the IT sector, and there are even bigger changes in the pipeline.

Which of the many views the ACS has expressed on many issues do you disagree with? Where is your contribution to the debate? Where do we see you attending ACS meetings, volunteering to serve on committees, or otherwise participating in a way that would tangibly demonstrate your professionalism?

We do not blow off our critics – we seek to address all legitimate concerns and be better for it. Please help us to represent your views to governments and the broader community better than you believe we presently do.

If you think Steophen Conroy doesn’t listen to us, ask him! If you’d like what we say to him to carry your message, tell us!

The Australian Council of Professions recognises us as the professional association for the IT secotr, the AMA for the medical sector, Engineers Australia for the engineering sector. None of us have as members all people in our profession, and we don’t claim that. We seek to represent the views of IT professionals to government. To the extent to which we can ascertain those views, we do not confine ourselves to the views of our members, which is why I would love to have your input.

As you have noted indirectly by the references to Bob Bain’s tweets, I have spent the best part of the last decade complaining that we have government by the clueless, over a place they’ve never been, using means they don’t possess. So help us to set them right rather than panning us for trying.

Like you, we are busy people with real day jobs. We do what we do because we really believe we can make the world a better place. I’m sure you do too, so let’s collaborate.

“Australian Council of Professions recognises us as the professional association for the IT”

Right. So some organisation or organisations from outside the IT industry recognises you as this. *slow sarcastic clap* aren’t you proud. You have to have a sense that you and your members aren’t exactly the cream of the crop of our industry. If not, that’s just how much you don’t “get it”

You’re not the ACM. You’re not the IEEE. Those organisations *do* things. They regularly publish peer-reviewed journals, support specific research, etc.
There are outcomes. Just go compare your annual conference – your only apparent activity – to topics at events run by ACM, IEEE, USENIX, etc. Not exactly setting the world on fire are you ACS?

Oh and those organisations avoid political involvement. Also, apparently unlike the ACS, they don’t put out statements supporting political activities without canvassing their membership first. Also would’ve made sense to consult with organisations who actually understand controls (ISACA, AISA, etc). But even they wouldn’t be putting out blanket support or reject statements for political issues because, unless you have genuinely 100% consensus, it’s just not appropriate to commit your members to a statement. And then, by claiming you’re recognized as “the professional association for the IT sector” also implies that you’re making this statement of support on behalf of the IT industry. Look around. You’re the only IT organisation who’s made such a statement.

So that, extending this concept, the ACS is the ‘gatekeeper’ for the dept. of immigration of who’s a professional and who’s not is a joke and is dangerous. When I came to Australia there was a real preoccupation by the ACS that a CS degree = you’re a professional.

I have to admit this is kind of personal for me. I was put the humiliating process of justifying why my 10 year career (at that time) in pretty ‘extreme computing’ such as parallel systems and very early Internet WAN work made me a “professional” but some kid with a BS from one of the (still) very undercooked CS programs with 0 practical experience was automatically a “professional”

Basically stick to your knitting ACS. Whatever that is.

The comments about the ACS here by Drazen Drazic are relatively tame compared to a lot of what is on the internet about this organisation. The questions are valid. The ACS cannot be accused of lying idle in terms of its promotion and it is these sales tactics that have created anti-ACS backlash and I believe deservedly so ACS. Some of the wording is quite offensive. The ACS is not my ‘guardian’ of ethics, morals and how I work. Instead of going on the attack ACS, ask yourself as Drazen Drazic stated, why is there such a poor perception or lack of interest in your organisation out there?

If the ACS is not the guardian of professional ethics in IT, who else is, JW? Assuming you agree that ethical conduct is a key element of being a professional, please point me to the code of ethics that you expouse.

Your credibility IS under question with me when all you can do is kick an innocent donkey. You need your arse kicked.

“If the ACS is not the guardian of professional ethics in IT”

Um CPSR and ACM have been around for a long time as well. And for our industry’s ethical guardian last time I checked that would be an ombudsman not a ‘for pay’ society.

Declaring yourselves to be the ‘ethics police’ for an industry who didn’t appoint you as such and then acting in an ad hoc way doesn’t increase your credibility in my eyes.

Is it ethical to state a position on a political issue without asking your members? No. Not in my opinion.

Consider these points in your own code of ethics:

4.5.6 I must advise my clients and employers as soon as possible of any conflicts of interest or conscientious objections which face me in connection with my work.

4.7.2 I must not misrepresent my skills or knowledge.

4.7.5 I must qualify professional opinions which I know are based on limited knowledge or experience.

4.10.7 I must seek advice from the Society when faced with an ethical dilemma I am unable to resolve by myself.

I see some issues with recent actions let alone my historical opinion.

So show some evidence that your membership was canvassed before someone committed the ACS to the Internet filter statement. If it wasn’t then someone didn’t follow your code of ethics and, according to your code of ethics, should be shunned:

4.10.5 I must distance myself professionally from someone whose membership of the Society has been terminated because of unethical behaviour or unsatisfactory conduct.

SHUN THE NON-BELIEVER, CHARLIE. SHUN-NA.
~~~~~~

You can choose any number of articles like this. The story is the same across the Net. There is something wrong with this mob being allowed to promote itself like it does. It is clear that the industry aside from a small percentage does not support them.

With over 10,000 members, you would think more would support the organisation in such discussions as this one. Look at poor Philip here in hostile territory all on his own. Are members sworn to silence Philip with only the top guys allowed to speak? If so, they have not done it well over the years.

Can someone poke their head into an ACS office and see if anyone is there?

The claim that the ACS is “the guardian of professional ethics in IT” is a rather bold one to make.

For starters, it is condescending to the vast majority of us IT professsionals who are both ethical, and non-members.

But more importantly, one could easily be forgiven to understand that the meaning of those words infers that the ACS, as “the guardian”, might have been bestowed with special legislative powers to enforce ethics in IT.

(And the use of the singular “THE” piously infers they are the only ones, and that there are no others.)

The reality is, the ACS have no legislative powers to enforce ethics in IT.

This is not news to IT professionals. But the mums, dads, media &, pollies who read the ACS’s PR blurbs & parliamentary submissions might easily be confused or perhaps, misinformed, by this kind of potentially misleading terminology.

While we could go on arguing the semantics of words & phrases, there can be little doubt: This claim has the real potential to suggestively over-inflate the ACS’s position as a representative voice in the IT industry.

In light of this, one has to really question why the ACS persists in making such a claim ?

Let me make it easy – what professional association DO you belong to and participate in, and what code of ethics do you subscribe to?

Come on, answer MY question first. Our claim is simply a factual one. We run a disciplinary regime under which sanctions are imposed for failure to uphold the code of ethics. We comment wherever we see unethical conduct. We are actually trying to achieve trustworthy people, processes and systems. Like any representative body, or indeed any survey, we don’t claim to represent 100% of our possible constituency. We reflect the broad cross section of IT practitioners.

You don’t need to be an angel, but if you want to be responsible for IT security, you need to subject yourself to some peer scrutiny against an objective benchmark. If you don’t accept what you see as our our self-proclaimed role, why would anyone accept yours?

This discussion seems to be following the same theme as all others on the Internet each time the ACS is raised in any article or forum where public input is permitted. It has been going on for years. There is rarely ever any support for the ACS and I suppose this goes along with declining membership.

Maybe it is time for Academia to also have a look at this and note what industry is saying and always has and pass an unbiased view onto students who are being recruited to keep this organisation afloat.

Industry is not supporting it and never has. It is a minor interest group that has excelled at overselling what it is to the likes of Academia and Government.

Many questions raised here Philip have not been answered. You seem selective in what you want to respond to.

The main thrust of the pro-ACS mob seems to be (paraphrased): “if you don’t like the ACS, why don’t you join & help make it better ?”.

By now,the answer to that question should be glaringly obvious to the ACS.

But for the sake of over-explaining the obvious, its for the same reason many of us choose not to join a particular society or religion: Relevance, or a lack thereof.

There are several other IT societies (previously alluded to)which offer great value, have ethical values, and are inclusive rather than exclusive. Unlike the ACS, these societies quietly go about their business without public breast-beating, political lobbying, or being elitist by claiming to be “the” gaurdians of ethics.

President Moira. It would be interesting to know how your organisation in South Africa is accepted? Now do we take your description or do we refer to Google like with the ACS to get the real story?

Tell me the two associations you belong to Jay. And why do you “have no idea” which of the members of the ACS Task Force were qualified to comment on Internet Filtering – shouldn’t you avoid making any comment if you have no idea?

http://www.acs.org.au/ispfiltering

I guess arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, but I have used my real name for all responses, and haven’t played games with aliases.

Please nominate a question I haven’t answered and I’ll do my best to address it. I have intended to deal with all that you guys have thrown at me!

“Please nominate a question I haven’t answered and I’ll do my best to address it. I have intended to deal with all that you guys have thrown at me!”

Here’s a few that don’t seem to be addressed;

*”What happens to many of the initiatives announced? eg;
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/165417/acs_launches_ict_certification_program”

*”What successes have you had with Senator Conroy? (You mentioned he does listen)”

*”The ACS membership accounts for only a very small percentage of the total number of IT people in this country. It would be interesting to know how many?”

*”why is there such a poor perception or lack of interest in your organisation out there?”

*”Is it ethical to state a position on a political issue without asking your members? ”

*”Are members sworn to silence Philip with only the top guys allowed to speak? ”

*”“When you are elected President of the ACS you have the right to speak on behalf of the ACS without conducting a poll of members each time. I know – it’s a weird concept that no-one else adopts.””

Phil,

I am an AISA and OWASP member.

What is interesting is that AISA released a formal position statement of its constituents stating that they are against Internet filtering. AISA members are comprised of qualified infosec practitioners, ranging from security managers, consultants, penetration testers, architects, etc. In other words, people with a vast collective experience with domain specialisation above and beyond the ACS.

Yet, your group, which claims to represent all IT practitioners, despite the cautions around transparency and accountability of content flagging, basically gives its tacit approval of Internet Filtering to the Federal Government. Not only is this deplorable in a moral and ethical sense (not confusing the two), but the technical document is fundamentally flawed in its failure to address known performance issues. The position taken – particularly with regards to the ISP trials – is laughable.

Have you heard the results of the ISP trials? If so, who were they? Were any of them a tier 1 carrier? What was the success criteria? Have you seen any of this information? The public sure as hell haven’t. And if you’re in the same boat as the rest of us, why aren’t the ACS railing against the Federal Goverment for this absolute sham of a program?

With the notable exception of Graham Ingram, I am not aware of anyone else’s experience on that taskforce within the infosec arena. Oh and FWIW, I am greatly disappointed to see his name on this document as well as I have a great deal of respect for him. He should be all too aware of the implications this will have not only on privacy but the natural evolutionary effect on malicious behaviour online.

OK, taking each of Tony’s ‘unanswered’ questions in turn:

The Certification programme was introduced and has been enhanced. Have a look under the Education and Certification tab at acs.org.au.

Senator Conroy appointed our South Australian Branch Chairman to his NBN Expert Committee, he participated in our panel pre-election debate, he has adopted much of what we put forward in the NICTIA 10 year vision for energising innovation in Australia, and he continues to listen. It doesn’t mean he always does what we ask, but I’ll bet you can’t email him and expect to have your views taken into account.

On a per capita basis, we are one of the largest IT professional associations in the world. The British Computer Society, for example, has 50,000 members compared to our 16,000, and in UK membership of the BCS is mandatory if you want to work for the British Government!

We live in an era where volunteerism is falling, and where it’s easy to take pot shots at people trying to change the world for the better. That’s fine; we have thick skins. But we don’t expect our critics to remain silent when asked how they suggest we do things better, or how their views could be better reflected in our policies and lobbying positions. If you think you can do it better than we can, by all means do so, but don’t just whinge about us.

It is quite ethical to speak on behalf of the profession without having a referendum. As President and Immediate Past President I meet many members and non members and speak to hundreds of IT practitioners every month. I don’t know how big your network is but I’d say I have a pretty good idea of people’s views. I monitor blogs like this to pick up on others’ views. Whilst you don’t reciprocate, I absorb your views whether I agree with them or not.

On ISP Filtering, did we jump on the bandwagon and pan it outright? No. Did we support it? No. Did we disagree with or criticise AISA? No. Did we try to approach it from a broad public interest perspective? Yes. What did we say? We said if there’s market demand for a filtered service, then let ISPs offer it but don’t force that onto everyone. We said ISP level filtering is mostly ineffectual, especially in relation to non-textual content. We said there needs to be more focus on educating people on how to install and use client level filtering if the issue is kids, but they’ll just go to a friend’s place and watch what their parents ban at home. So ultimately it’s the values they’re brought up with that will help minimise any adverse effects that could flow from viewing unsuitable material. And we said lots more, but if people just criticise without quoting what part of the report they criticise, it’s hard to meet the criticism.

Are we being pious or misleading when we claim to be “the” guardian of ethics? No, we have a disciplinary regime with teeth. You can commit to the ten commandments or your family values or you can be an atheist, but there’s no real sanction apart from the law if you breach those standards. When did you last take someone to task for breaching those standards and what was the outcome? We take people to task for being unethical in the practise of ICT in Australia. We are a self-appointed and self-proclaimed guardian – no disputing that. But you can’t say we don’t carry out the task with determination!

Members are not sworn to silence but, unlike me, they probably don’t troll for comment on the ACS and probably haven’t stumbled across this blog.

Any more questions? As the Immediate Past President, I have served on the ACS Management Committee for the past 13 years. Why would anyone do that?

Our Annual Reports are publicly available at http://www.acs.org.au/index.cfm?action=list&sgrID=200605081120456573 You should be able to develop a clearer understanding of what we’re about, but we are genuinely altruistic and none of us is paid a cent for the time we put into the ACS.

ICT is a young occupation at only 45 years old. We can argue the pros and cons of having a representing body and who should represent it, but over the past 40+ years, the ACS has evolved and established itself.

Now, besides providing its members with services for career development, professional networking and significant financial benefits, the ACS also works to increase the capability of organisations, governments and communities to utilise ICT effectively and minimise risk through programmes such as modernising our core body of knowledge (and yes, despite the diversity, there does remain a core body of knowledge for ICT practitioners), our formal code of ethics and code of professional practice, uni/tafe course accreditation, ACS Education program as well as promoting ICT as a career, National ICT Careers Week, and the establishment of the ACS Foundation which grants scholarships so that disadvantaged youngsters can study IT.

We are developing a thought leadership role in ICT to advance the profession globally (IFIP (International Federation of Information Processing)) and regionally (SEARCC (South East Asia Regional Computer Confederation). In Australia, we work with Governments to develop information and statistical repositories on ICT and its profession. This information supports the development of policy to advance professional excellence in ICT.

We have a scheme under the Professional Standards Act so that contractors and consultants can perform their roles without their personal assets like house and car being at risk, which is good for their families, and the quid pro quo is a commitment to keep their skills up to date.

I am not saying that the ACS is perfect, but when it comes to member engagement, presentation and policy issues, we do seek input from both members and non-members to provide input into policy formulation and positioning. We have interesting monthly meetings, web streams, technical boards and special interest groups.

We engage with members and the general community through events, branch e-newsletters, Information Age, and social networking.

Despite some hardnosed critics, hopefully we share a passion for the profession, and a desire to be “ICT Professionals Shaping Our Future”.

I challenge you to take an active role in your professional body (whether you think it’s the ACS or some other body if you prefer someone else) and to contribute to making what you believe in part of reality.

Cheers

Phil

You use a number of well-know rhetorical tricks to avoid answering the questions.

First, the question isn’t whether you’re bigger than overseas societies, but whether your membership is tiny. At 4.3 percent, it is, and you have no basis to claim that you represent the profession. [1]

Second, you repeatedly avoid answering the questions but instead quiz your critics about statements they make, such as asking them their names or which societies they belong to. That’s an old court-room tactic to put someone on the defensive. That’s not the behaviour of someone trying to honestly answer questions, and it raises serious questions about the motivations and agenda of the ACS.

Third, why does the ACS lie about its membership numbers (comment 38) and are there other things the ACS is lying about?

Fourth, it’s disingenuous for you to claim you derive no benefit from your activities under the umbrella of the ACS. As a lawyer working on technology transactions, you would enjoy enormous financial and professional benefit from being seen by government and large clients as an “IT expert.”

On that subject, what are your own qualifications and expertise in IT?

Fifth, you try to deflect criticism by promoting the ACS ethics scheme and asking people what contribution they make but, again, that’s not the issue. In fact, promoting the existence of the ethics scheme is one of the tactics described in the ACS marketing document. (Cited at comment 38.)

Sixth, the ACS code of conduct more or less prohibits members from criticising the ACS. (Section A.10 The Image of the Profession and the Society.)

http://acs.org.au/index.cfm?action=show&conID=copc2#A10

Seventh, contrary to your claims, the ACS has never taken a stand on anything. Instead it releases vacuous reports that are checked with government first, and intended as exercises to promote ACS power within government. (See the marketing document cited in comment 38.)

Finally, Phil, I think it’s high time your little organisation and its many claims were properly investigated. Innovation and the IT industry are too important to leave the situation as it stands.

Note 1. The 4.3 percent figure is from 2004. Since the IT workforce has increased since then, ACS coverage is probably even smaller now.

Why does the ACS persist in sanctimoniously claiming to be “the” public advocate for IT, “the” gaurdian of ethics, “the” everything?

Its difficult to avoid the likely conclusion – they have their heads firmly up their collective arses.

Quote from Kumar Parmakala, President of ACS http://www.acs.org.au/iage/200910/#/6/ ;

“we continue to play an influential role as THE public advocate for IT professionals, enjoying a deep respect and strong media presence”

Er, once again, the ACS is not “the” public IT advocate, or “the” IT anything, for that matter.

“deep respect” ?? wtf ??

Philip, you came to this blog and offered, as a senior representative of the ACS, to answer questions about that organisation.

Given that you have repeatedly gone to the media and government and claimed to officially represent IT professionals, and derived significant advantage from doing so, it is a simple courtesy that you should be able to defend your position with the constituency you claim to represent.

Yet when faced with some serious, factual, referenced questions, you refrain from further communication.

I put it to you that is not professional behaviour, Philip.

I have answered questions fully and frankly, and have identified myself. You have done neither.

I’ll meet with Drazen over coffee next week and we’ll take things from there.

Cue – the music from the classic Western – The Good, the bad & the ugly:

“I’ll meet with Drazen over coffee next week and we’ll take things from there.”

Er, you’ll take what, where, mate ?

Duelling caffe lattes… at ten paces ?

Draz: Be very careful mate, this bloke sounds *really* scary & dangerous.

And the discussion moves on:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/acs-to-unveil-professional-indemnity-scheme/story-e6frgakx-1225795650081

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.

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.

Defamatory!! Phillip Phillip Phillip, you are joking arent you, please tell me you are..

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.