Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: CISSP Question
From: "Craig Wright" <Craig.Wright () bdo com au>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:01:37 +1000
Simmons, You are mixing the word in its various taxonomies. The descriptive (the adjective) is not the same as the noun. You may seem to feel to differ, but at no time has my definition moved from the original - it has been increased in precision. "Your definition of Advocacy is tied to lawyers" - at no point. The diagram was an extract from Abbot 1988. It was not mine. I can not send a link as this is a scan from a book. Again, this is not my definition. It is one that is defined through others and the citations I supplied detail this. You are assuming that a quick dictionary search and a cursory understanding are sufficent.
From your response, I have to assume that you have not seen many
contracts or been involved in the creation of contracts. I stated that enlisted people are not members of a profession as a result of being enlisted. This is not to say that they are not professional. Military personal for the most part act very prodfessionally, but acting professionally does not mean that you are a member of a profession. The words are not the same in all contexts. Regards, Craig Craig Wright Manager of Information Systems Direct +61 2 9286 5497 Craig.Wright () bdo com au +61 417 683 914 BDO Kendalls (NSW) Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO BOX 2551 Sydney NSW 2001 Fax +61 2 9993 9497 www.bdo.com.au Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. The information in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy, distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it contains. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your system. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls. You may not rely on this message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls. It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects. BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or damage however caused which may result from this communication or any files attached. A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at http://www.bdo.com.au or by emailing administrator () bdo com au. BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and entities. -----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Simmons, James Sent: Friday, 4 May 2007 4:03 AM To: Craig Wright Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: RE: CISSP Question Craig, The problem with this argument is that the definition of professional is relative. And you are pre-occupied with defining it in a legal context. Though I am sure at some point it will have to be examined under legal context, the main problem is that ISC2 has not defined what they mean as professional (or at least in any public documents I can remember finding). That is why lawyers always spend the first few pages of contracts defining terms used. Here is the Princeton definition of a profession. # the body of people in a learned occupation; "the news spread rapidly through the medical community" # an occupation requiring special education (especially in the liberal arts or sciences) # an open avowal (true or false) of some belief or opinion; "a profession of disagreement" # affirmation of acceptance of some religion or faith; "a profession of Christianity" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aprofession&btnG=Search This discussion will continue on because you will continue to bring up other references that make another definition of the wording of professional. (First, it was someone who abided by your definition of professional responsibility, then it was someone who was part of an organization, and then it is someone who advocates, etc. ) I keep refuting your claims, and then you bring up more references that change the definition that you are using. What needs to be done is a decision on your definition of profession and then present it for rebuttal. This whole "trying to hit a moving target" is not going end at all. Now on to your e-mail, advocacy is a position of representation. http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3A official&channel=s&hl=en&q=define%3Aadvocacy&btnG=Google+Search And here is a quote: "The act of speaking or of disseminating information intended to influence individual behavior or opinion, corporate conduct or public policy and law." But, for arguments sake, lets take your definition: "It is the role and effect as a mouthpiece and involves the act of arguing on behalf of a particular issue. A Security consultant does this. A Security guard does not." So by your definition, how is a doctor an advocate? How is the security consultant? He is consulting a client. Not speaking for them. In any case, your definition of professional is obviously not what ISC2 requires to take their exam. There are plenty of CISSP "professional" who do not fit your definition of professional. Your definition of Advocacy is tied to lawyers. I really liked your diagram though, and you should really give a link to it instead. But your diagram is flawed for your argument in that the main contributing factor to the definition of a professional is the "Academic Knowledge" portion that everything runs through. And I would easily argue that not all actual IT professionals have had said Academic Knowledge. Which just points out the flaw in these old definitions of professionals that you are using? (Case in point, Bill Gates, the riches man in the world, never completed his Academic Knowledge. So he is not a professional by your standards?) Of course by your definition again, Police would not be considered professionals? They are performing the same security services that a security guard is, they just perform to a higher degree, and have been decreed by the government to perform their job in such a way (government regulation). And finally I would have to touch on your statement that enlisted individuals are not considered professionals. Granted it is a really grey area, but since you are going to claim a general group I will disprove it with a single subset. NCO, Chiefs/Sergeants, and Warrant Officers. The higher echelons of the enlisted military community. They run there shops / battalions, group. They are the managers, they are the life blood of any military. I would have to make the argument that as soon as you achieve the rank of NCO then you should be considered a professional. You had to demonstrate your skill / knowledge, you are then expected to become a leader of men. (They are called First Line Leaders after all.) And being a previous NCO, I would have to claim from experience, but I am not expecting anyone to take my word for it. You don't know me or when I am lying.. Instead, draw your on conclusions or go do your own research. Regards, Simmons -----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Craig Wright Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:34 PM To: Anonymous Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: RE: CISSP Question Simmons, A customary assessment deployed to appraise if an employment is, in fact, a "profession" is the "advocacy test". Basically: If a paid job necessitates that one recurrently performs as an advocate for a different person, group, or organisation who require the precise information necessary for such advocacy, then that employment fulfils the analysis and is reasoned a "profession".
From this, the significance of explicit "codes of ethics" and (commonly)
licensure ensues. Traditionally there were only a limited number of professions, Medicine, the Clergy, and Academe. This has expanded over the years. Members of the Secret Service are considered Intelligence Professionals. They in the nature of their work provide advocacy. The role of a security guard is not one which entails the provisioning of advocacy. A military officer is considered a professional, an enlisted person or NCO is not. As for Government, civil servants may or may not be professionals based on what they do. Diplomatic staff, accountants, lawyers etc are all professionals. A clerk is not. The use is oft misconstrued. The terminology "a professional athlete" for instance refers to a sports person who preforms for money. This is often confused to construe that the person is a professional. The terms are not the same and the taxonomy differs. Just as one works for money, one is not is necessity a professional. The athlete who acts as a "professional" coach following their sporting career has become a professional. As for Security guards, though they have organisations such as Security Police and Fireman's Professional Association, this is a Union and not a professional body. They are not the same. A former security guard who has moved into a management and consulting role and who designs (for instance) security solutions and procedures would be entering into the sphere of being a professional, though they are no longer a security guard at this point. As for carpenters, cooks and auto mechanics, they act in a trade. However a trained and qualified chef (unlike a cook) is classified as a professional. None of this says anything as to the skill or ability of the person or the level of training in the job. Many trades have high levels of training, but still fail to qualify as a profession. Basically, any job which is a trade can not by definition be considered a profession - the terms are mutually exclusive. Regards, Craig Craig Wright Manager of Information Systems Direct +61 2 9286 5497 Craig.Wright () bdo com au +61 417 683 914 BDO Kendalls (NSW) Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO BOX 2551 Sydney NSW 2001 Fax +61 2 9993 9497 www.bdo.com.au Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. The information in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy, distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it contains. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your system. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls. You may not rely on this message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls. It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects. BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or damage however caused which may result from this communication or any files attached. A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at http://www.bdo.com.au or by emailing administrator () bdo com au. BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and entities.
Current thread:
- RE: CISSP Question, (continued)
- 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 Craig Wright (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)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 08)
- CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 08)
- Re: CISSP Question Yousef Syed (May 09)