When Ethics and IT Collide

jcatcw writes "IT workers have access to confidential data, and they can see what other employees are doing on their computers or the networks. This can put a good worker in a bad predicament. Bryan, the IT director for the U.S. division of German company, discovered an employee using a company computer to view pornography of Asian women and of children. He reported it but the company ignored it. Subsequently the employee was promoted and moved to China to run a manufacturing plant. That was six years ago but Bryan still regrets not going to the FBI. Other IT workers admit using their admin passwords to snoop through company systems. In a Ponemon Institute poll of more than 16,000 U.S. IT practitioners, 62% said they had accessed another person's computer without permission, 50% read confidential or sensitive information without a legitimate reason, and 42% said they had knowingly violated their company's privacy, security or IT policies. But in the absence of a professional code of ethics, companies struggle to keep corporate policies up to date."

Comments

There *is* a code of ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACM has done at least one thing right:

http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics

Re:There *is* a code of ethics

[NMerriam]

Not sure about in the US but in Canada EVERYONE is legally required to report any child abuse they have evidence of.

The difference for "mandatory reporters" is that they are legally required to report even suspicions of abuse, not just cases where they have evidence or knowledge. Abuse is usually very hard to recognize with any certainty.

There is no Absence!

[beheaderaswp]

There is a professional organization, of which I happen to be a member, Called "LOPSA"- "League of Professional System Administrators".

The code of ethics is found here:

http://lopsa.org/CodeOfEthics

While my IT department does not require membership in this organization, these rules of ethics are *posted* and violations of those rules are a fireable offense!

Re:There is no Absence!

[beheaderaswp]

Agreed.

But adopting a code like this as departmental "law" does two important things:

1. It puts employees we serve at ease because they have a measuring stick for our conduct. (A copy of the LOPSA code is included in the new employee materials)

2. It gives the IT director leverage to cleanly and efficiently fire workers when ethical mis-steps occur.

You're right: "I" don't need the "code"- but it has good uses.

Are you willing to pay the increasing salaries?

[Colin Smith]

Because there are already professional certifications available for IT people. Speaking from personal experience they currently make bugger all difference to fees or salaries. If you were to require such certifications then the reduction in supply of IT personnel would cause the salaries of the certified to rocket... As it has for lawyers, doctors, accountants etc.

No? Not willing to pay up? Oh well then, you can't really complain.

Re:Why bother keeping corporate policies up to dat

[Tyrantmode]

Apparently he did report it but his superiors decided to shelve it. Not too terribly surprising given the fact that most of these "internet usage" policies are pretty much just paper with no teeth (at least in my experience).

Re:Not entirely ethics

[certain death]

Being an IT Security person, I am PAID SPECIFICALLY to invade everyones privacy and be a tattle tail! We make employees sign a statement that says that they will not mis-use company resources (the resources are of course defined loosely) and that they should have no expectation of privacy when using said company resources, as they are all monitored. Yes, I would squeal like a stuck pig to law enforcement if I found someone dealing in child pr0n or looking at it. Adult pr0nb is for the HR or Compliance people to deal with, as in, we don't allow you to download fuck movies using company bandwidth, if you do, you will be fired...no matter who you are.

Psychopaths.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

What kind of soulless bastard needs a written code of ethics to know what's right and wrong?

A psychopath does.

They are about 1% of the population and apparently have a brain defect (akin to color blindness) that amounts to having no conscience.

If they don't "compensate" by voluntarily adopting a clear set of rules of conduct (or even if they do but the code is deficient) they are likely to become criminal menaces.

(It's also possible to learn behaviors that suppress conscience, with similar results. In fact this appears to be somewhat more common - at least among career criminals - than the actual mental defect. One expert in the field distinguishes the two cases by reserving the term "sociopath" for the latter - though "sociopath" is normally applied to either.)

Most of law, religion, and culture - along with the distinctions between cultures - is related to how to handle this fraction of the population. Teaching them rules of conduct (either to block misbehavior or to direct it only at outside-the-tribe groups), convincing them to adopt such rules (typically by teaching them that following he rules is good for "number one" - either in this world or an afterlife), penalizing them for misbehavior, separating them from the general population and warehousing, deporting, or killing them.

Because the suffering of others doesn't cause them mental anguish they can be some of the worst of people: Torturing, raping, and killing for their own fun. For the same reason they can be the best of people: They have to CONSCIOUSLY DECIDE to be good and work hard at it - which IMHO is far more meritorious than being good because been bad feels bad. And for the same reason they can do very well as decision makers and leaders, able to think clearly when making decisions where suffering and/or death are involved.

Compensated and partially-compensated psychopaths gravitate to positions in politics, management, sales, and crime. And those who have not fully compensated (a difficult task) occasionally cause headlines and distrust for all practitioners of those first professions when they combine one of them with that last one. B-)

So an executive who is willing to break the rules to indulge his interest in banned sexual practices by viewing banned or frowned-upon reading material on the company network is hardly surprising. What matters is whether he's compensated enough to restrict his enjoyment to reading material or if he'll also do some enjoying of it in real life (or let it affect his managerial decisions in an improper way).

Re:At the end of the day, it's your reflection.

[Just Some Guy]

I guess he is just glad that you weren't so convinced that you dropped a few extra files onto his machine - all in order to protect your children from the non-existant menace. Congratulations, I am sure your witch hunting will be put to better use next time.

I tend to be of the same opinion, but I also recognize that there's such a thing as probable cause. Sometimes people act creepy just because they're eccentric. Other people act creepy because they really are doing creepy things.

There's a huge difference between looking more closely at someone who's drawn attention to themselves and framing that person. Most rational adults are quite capable of doing the former without stooping to the latter. The alternative is deliberately looking the other way regardless of warning signs, and frankly, that's just cowardice.

Moderation and caution, my friend.