So, Network World Fusion is suggesting that all IT security folks take an oath to make sure that the "health" of the organization they service comes first. Modeled on the hippocratic oath, the author proposes some features that this oath of IT security should have. This is a novel way to grab people's attention (indeed, it grabbed mine,) but I'm irritated after reading it because it captured my attention only to repeat the same tired platitudes that I read every day. If you're going to say the same thing as everyone else, why not say it the same way as always so that my "noise filter" can weed it out like the rest of the ubiquitous white noise out there.
So, separating the medium from the message, the article is flawed in more than the fact that it lacks originality of content. There's also much more to the hippocratic oath than "first, do no harm." Actually, "first do no harm" (despite sounding good) isn't in the oath itself - it's too simplistic and including it in the oath detracts from the well thought out power of the oath itself. For example, does killing cells count as "harm"? What about cancer cells? How about radiation therepy that kills both cancer cells and other cells? The truth is, sometimes a tradeoff has to be made - sometimes short term "harm" leads to long term "health." "First do no harm" does not account for these complexities where the oath in it's traditional form does; the tenets are:
1) Pass knowledge along to other in the same profession. Impart knowledge and train others.
2) Do your best to treat the patient, never knowingly applying remedies that are known to be to the disservice of the patient. Reject anything that takes a life (not quite a simple as "do no harm".)
3) Abstain from experimentation on a patient or putting into effect cures that are unneeded.
4) Respect the privacy of the patient.
All good things that we should keep in mind, but does the article mention them? Read it for yourself and understand my frustration.
Posted by Ed at March 14, 2005 09:42 AM