|
Value of Hiring and
Working with CCPs
Code of Conduct
Code of Good Practice
Revocation
of Certificate
|
Code of Ethics
ICCP Code of
Ethics
- Certified computing professionals,
consistent with their obligation to the public at large, should
promote the understanding of information processing methods and
procedures using every resource at their command.
- Certified computing professionals
have an obligation to their profession to uphold the high ideals
and level of personal knowledge as evidenced by the Certificate
held. They should also encourage the dissemination of knowledge
pertaining to the development of the computing profession.
- Certified computing professionals
have an obligation to serve the interests of their employers and
clients loyally, diligently and honestly.
- Certified computing professionals
must not engage in any conduct or commit any act which is a discredit
to the reputation or integrity of the information processing profession.
- Certified computing professionals
must not imply that the Certificates which they hold are their
sole claim to professional competence.
Code of Conduct
and Good Practice for Certified Computing Professionals (CCPs)
The essential elements relating
to conduct that identify a professional activity are:
- A high standard of skill
and knowledge.
- A confidential relationship
with people served.
- Public reliance upon
the standards of conduct and established practice.
- The observance of an
ethical code.
Therefore, these Codes have been formulated to strengthen the professional
status of certified computing professionals.
1. Preamble
- 1.1: The basic issue,
which may arise in connection with any ethical proceedings before
a Certification Council, is whether a holder of a Certificate
administered by that Council has acted in a manner which violates
the Code of Ethics for certified computing professionals.
- 1.2: Therefore, the ICCP
has elaborated the existing Code of Conduct, which defines more
specifically an individual's professional responsibility. This
step was taken in recognition of questions and concerns as to
what constitutes professional and ethical conduct in the computing
profession.
- 1.3: The ICCP has reserved
for and delegated to each Certification Council the right to revoke
any Certificate which has been issued under its administration
in the event that the recipient violates the Codes of Ethics,
as amplified by the Code of Conduct. The revocation proceedings
are specified by rules governing the business of the Certification
Council and provide protection of the rights of any individual
who may be subject to revocation of a certificate held. The ICCP
may bypass revocation proceedings and automatically revoke any
Certificate for non-compliance with mandatory recertification
processes, providing the certificate was awarded subject to mandatory
recertification requirements.
- 1.4: Insofar as violation
of the Code of Conduct may be difficult to adjudicate, the ICCP
has also promulgated a Code of Good Practice, the violation of
which does not in itself constitute a reason to revoke a Certificate.
However, any evidence concerning a serious and consistent breach
of the Code of Good Practice may be considered as additional circumstantial
evidence in any ethical proceedings before a Certification Council.
- 1.5: Whereas the Code
of Conduct is of a fundamental nature, the Code of Good Practice
is expected to be amended from time to time to accommodate changes
in the social environment and to keep up with the development
of the information processing profession.
- 1.6: A Certification
Council will not consider a complaint where the holder's conduct
is already subject to legal proceedings. Any complaint will only
be considered when the legal action is completed, or it is established
that no legal proceedings will take place.
- 1.7: Recognizing that
the language contained in all sections of either the Code of Conduct
or Code of Good Practice is subject to interpretations beyond
those intended, the ICCP intends to confine all Codes to the matters
pertaining to personal actions of individual certified computing
professionals in situations for which they can be held directly
accountable without reasonable doubt.
- 1.8: Certified computing
professionals have a responsibility to respect intellectual property
rights, including copyrights, patents and trademarks. Violation
of copyrights, patents and terms of license agreements is prohibited
by law in most circumstances. Even when not so protected, such
violations are contrary to professional behavior. Software should
be copied only with proper authorization. Unauthorized duplication
of both printed and electronic materials must be discouraged including
those cases where the work has not been explicitly protected by
any means. Credit should not be taken for the work of others.
The work of others should not be used without specific acknowledgment
and authorization.
2. Code
of Conduct
- 2.1: Disclosure: Subject
to the confidential relationships between oneself and one's employer
or client one is expected not to transmit information which one
acquires during the practice of one's profession in any situation
which may seriously affect a third party.
- 2.2: Social Responsibility:
One is expected to accept a responsibility to the public to diminish,
through a continuing educational process, confusion and misconceptions
surrounding the information processing industry. One is expected
to be cognizant of and act in accordance with all procedures and
regulations to improve public safety through the protection of
information vital to the security of the nation and its people,
both collectively and individually.
- 2.3: Conclusions and
Opinions: One is expected to state a conclusion on a subject in
one's field only when it can be demonstrated that it has been
founded on adequate knowledge. One will state a qualified opinion
when expressing a view in an area within one's professional competence
but not supported by relevant facts.
- 2.4: Identification:
One shall properly qualify oneself when expressing an opinion
outside one's professional competence in the event that such an
opinion could be identified by a third party as expert testimony,
or if by inference the opinion can be expected to be used improperly.
- 2.5: Integrity: One will
not knowingly lay claims to competence one does not demonstrably
possess. One shall not take advantage of the lack of knowledge
or inexperience of others.
- 2.6: Conflict of Interest:
One shall act with strict impartiality when purporting to give
independent advice. In the event that the advice given is currently
or potentially influential to one's personal benefit, full and
detailed disclosure to all relevant interested parties will be
made at the time the advice is provided. One's employer especially
should be made aware of any potential conflicts of interest. One
will not denigrate the honesty or competence of a fellow professional
or a competitor, with the intent to gain an unfair advantage.
- 2.7: Accountability:
The degree of professional accountability for results will be
dependent on the position held and type of work performed. For
instance: A senior executive is accountable for the quality of
work performed by all individuals the person supervises and for
ensuring that recipients of information are fully aware of known
limitations in the results provided. The personal accountability
of consultants and technical experts is especially important because
of the positions of unique trust inherent in their advisory roles.
Consequently, they are accountable for seeing to it that known
limitations of their work are fully disclosed, documented and
explained. Furthermore, information processing professionals have
a responsibility to take appropriate action regarding any illegal
or unethical practices that come to their attention. Charges should
be brought against a person only when a reasonable basis for the
allegations has been established, without regard to personal interest.
- 2.8: Protection of Privacy:
One shall protect the privacy and confidentiality of all entrusted
information. One shall have special regard for the potential effects
of computer-based systems on the right of privacy of individuals
whether this is within one's own organization, among customers
or suppliers, or in relation to the general public. Because of
the privileged capability of computing professionals to gain access
to computerized files, especially strong strictures will be applied
to those who have used their position of trust to obtain information
from computerized files for their personal gain.
Where it is possible that decisions can be made within a computer-based
system could adversely affect the personal security, work or career
of an individual, the system design shall specifically provide for
decision review by a responsible executive who will thus remain
accountable and identifiable for that decision.
3.
Code of Good Practice
- 3.1: Education: One has
a special responsibility to keep oneself fully aware of developments
in information processing technology relevant to one's current
professional occupation. One will contribute to the interchange
of technical and professional information by encouraging and participating
in educational activities directed to both fellow professionals
and to the public at large. One will do all in one's power to
further public understanding of computer systems. One will contribute
to the growth of knowledge in the field to the extent that one's
expertise, and ability allow.
- 3.2: Personal Conduct:
Insofar as one's personal and professional activities interact
visibly to the same public, one is expected to support, respect
and abide by the appropriate laws and in general to apply the
same high standards of behavior in one's personal life as are
demanded in one's professional activities.
- 3.3: Competence: One
shall at all times exercise technical and professional competence
at least to the level one claims. One shall not deliberately withhold
information in one's possession unless disclosure of that information
could harm or seriously affect another party, or unless one is
bound by a proper, clearly defined confidential relationship.
One shall not deliberately destroy or diminish the value or effectiveness
of a computer? based system through acts of commission or omission.
- 3.4: Statements: One
shall not make false or exaggerated statements as to the state
of affairs existing or expected regarding any aspect of information
technology or the use of computers. In communicating with lay
persons, one shall use general language wherever possible and
shall not use technical terms or expressions unless there exist
no adequate equivalents in the general language.
- 3.5: Discretion: One
shall exercise maximum discretion in disclosing, or permitting
to be disclosed, or using to one's own advantage, any information
relating the affairs of one's present or previous employers or
clients.
- 3.6: Conflict of interest:
One shall not knowingly hold, assume, or accept a position or
a client with which one's interests conflict or are likely to
conflict with one's current duties or clients unless that interest
has been disclosed in advance to all parties involved.
- 3.7: Public Safety: One
has a responsibility to protect fundamental human rights and dignity
and to respect cultural diversity. Those who design, develop and
maintain computer systems shall be alert to and make others aware
of any potential damage to the local and global environment. When
developing information systems, computing professionals must ensure
that their efforts are used to benefit humanity. Harmful effects
to general health and welfare of the public shall be avoided.
- 3.8: Violations: One
is expected to report violations of the Code, testify in ethical
proceedings where one has expert or firsthand knowledge, and serve
on panels to judge complaints of violations of ethical conduct.
4.
Procedural requirements for revocation of certificate awarded
- 4.1: The ICCP may automatically
revoke Certificates for non?compliance with mandatory recertification
processes, providing the certificate was awarded subject to mandatory
recertification requirements.
- 4.2: A Certification
Council, on behalf of the Institute for Certification of Computing
Professionals, has the right to revoke any Certificate which has
been awarded by it in the event that the recipient violates the
Codes, or engages in conduct which is a discredit or disgrace
to the computing profession.
- 4.3: The grounds for
revocation, except for failure to comply with mandatory recertification
requirements, will be based upon the opinion of at least two-thirds
of the members of the Council.
- 4.4: Procedure for handling
revocation:
1. A formal written statement of charges alleging facts which
constitute the grounds for revocation will be prepared.
2. A copy of said charges will be forwarded to the person accused,
fixing a time within which such person may file with the Council
answers to the charges.
3. If the charges are denied in the answer, the Council will fix
a time for the hearing and give notice of the time and place of
the hearing to the person accused.
4. Presentation of evidence in support of the charges will be
made by the secretary (a nonvoting member) of the Certification
Council.
5. Presentation of the evidence in defense of the charges will
be made by the accused or the designated representative of the
accused.
6. Ample opportunity for both sides to present facts and arguments
will be allowed at the hearing.
7. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council will determine
whether or not the charges have been sufficiently established
by the evidence and whether the Certificate should be revoked
or should not be revoked.
8. The accused will be notified of the decision by registered
mail.
9. The accused has the right to request review of the decision
by the Executive Committee of ICCP, provided an appeal in writing
is submitted to the President of ICCP within 30 days of the accused's
receipt of the Council's decision.
|
