Ihe, I assume you are posting this link for a reason, but having read
the referenced...

BCS [British Computer Society], THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE FOR IT
TRUSTEE BOARD REGULATIONS - SCHEDULE 3
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS

...the reason is not clear to me.  The statement appears to me to be in
service of the BCS's institutional concerns, taking the position that
the true calling of an IT professional is to maintain the status quo,
play by the rules, etc.  Is that your understanding of it, or am I
reading it wrongly?

That kind of thing makes sense for Bar Associations, because their
members' professional calling is to serve the Rule of Law.  It makes
sense for the accounting profession, too, because its purpose is to
maintain the stability of property ownership, get public services paid
for without undermining the currency, support the formation of capital
in securities, allocate and direct resources, and so forth.

A pro-establishment mission statement makes less sense for doctors.
Doctors have a calling that can conflict with the requirements imposed
by law and by property.  I don't want to seek therapy from a doctor
whose primary professional duty is to anything but my recovery,
consistent with public health.  We expect doctors to be disruptive in
just that way.  An important global professional organization's name,
"Medecins sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders" is emblematic of my
point, here.

The flavor of the British Computer Society statement makes even less
sense for Information Interchange Professionals, whose professional duty
can very easily conflict with the interests of the status quo.  In my
own view, an Information Interchange Professional accepts responsibility
for the accurate transfer of information among diverse communities with
diverse viewpoints and diverse universes of discourse, no matter the
agenda.

Such a role *must* be a disruptive one, at least from the perspective of
the establishment, but it's a life-affirming role from the perspective
of human beings, because of the stark "adapt or die" choice every
organism faces.  Humanity cannot adapt successfully if it doesn't know
what it needs to adapt to.  Indeed, I suppose the reason humanity is now
the dominant species on this planet is its phenomenal adaptability,
which in turn rests on its ability to share information of considerable
complexity, subtlety, and novelty.

And that's why Freedom of Speech (which is something that the UK
establishment's Official Secrets Act limits, BTW) and Open Source are
two things, among many others, that are profoundly wise and
life-affirming, as well as being threatening to existing interests.
They are wise things because public health demands more than clean water
and vaccinations.

On 12/04/2013 02:03 AM, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
> http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/conduct.pdf