Security Basics mailing list archives
"Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question
From: "David Gillett" <gillettdavid () fhda edu>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:06:06 -0700
The CISSP code of ethics explicitly recognizes all of the qualities of a "profession", as described, except the official government licensing stamp. I believe there are those whose ambition is for CISSP, or something like it, to achieve that legal status. -- Years ago, when I was still a rather young software developer, I worked for a small company. The company was owned by four partners: three CPAs and a lawyer, and employed 2-3 additional CPAs in its accounting practice. But it also employed a dozen programmers and analysts to support and maintain a vertical-market application that had been designed to meet the needs of some specific accounting clients and had gone on to further sales within their industry. One day, the lawyer called the head of the software group into his office, demanding to know why morale was so poor amongst the software folks. The software head diplomatically suggested that the software folks didn't feel that they were treated as "professionals". IF the lawyer had responded by clarifying the legal status of "professions", as Craig has done, the software head would have been forced to try and find slightly less diplomatic phrasing... But, according to the version that quickly spread through the office grapevine, the lawyer's answer was "You're not; PROFESSIONALS make over $25K a year." (I did specify that this was some years back.) But I also had a pretty good sense of the market value of my skills, and knew that there was exactly ONE reason that I was making less than $25K a year -- and that was WHO I was employed by. Which changed just as soon as I could arrange it.... My point, I guess, is that even members of "professions" do not exclusively use "professional" in the narrow "member of a legally recognized profession" sense, or even in the broader "making a career of applying a commonly accepted body of knowledge and principles on behalf of principals" sense, and so it may be unreasonable to require that everyone else use the term to express only these specific meanings. David Gillett
Current thread:
- RE: CISSP Question, (continued)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- Re: RE: CISSP Question barcajax (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 04)
- RE: RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- "Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question David Gillett (May 03)
- RE: "Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 04)
- "Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question David Gillett (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- Message not available
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 07)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 04)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 04)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 07)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 07)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 08)