Readers' Letters Sysadmins licencing bill condemned
BOFHs bite back
It was to be expected that BOFHs everywhere would come out against the new UK Bill that legally requires sysadmins to have a licence to work. Wayne Pascoe kicks off with:
This is stupid. First they give us RIP, now this. When will they tell me whether or not I need a licence? Charles Clarke says: "It is our fundamental principle to ensure the Bill is targeted at those specialist providers of security services who we have indicated we want to regulate, and that we do not inadvertently catch groups that are not relevant to our policy aims."
If, knowing that the wording of the bill was opposed by groups related to the IT industry, they still passed it with a vote 315 to 111, then they are making a damn clear indication that they intend to target the IT industry.
Will this cost me? Will I need one before going for an interview? Will it be a case of my company can't keep me on if I don't have one?
Things are tough enough for sysadmins at the moment with the downturn in the tech market, but to do this to us is just plain hostile.
Michael Barnes sees other implications. What happens when BOFH turns on BOFH in a bloody sysadmin war of collaboration and betrayal:
I'd like to see all Reg-reading sysadmins go through the procedures to become licensed as soon as it is implemented.
No being turned away because it's not intended to cover the IT industry, net security advisers can't afford to risk being accused of practicing illegally.
Oh, and obviously there should be an anonymous email line somewhere to grass up the big company who just laid you off and brought in an unlicensed yank to do your network job. I'm sure somebody will set one up soon enough.
I cannot help but wonder what will happen when some BOFH decides to formally complain about some other BOFH practicing without a license. I also cannot wait to find out.
And finally, where would we be without an MS conspiracy angle? Jeremy Littrell is our man in the darkened underground carpark with a raincoat and cigarette:
I am suprised you missed the obvious meaning of this legislation. As your article clearly states: "Charles Clarke...has assured IT people that the government has no intention of licensing them."
This clearly implies the true purpose of this bill is to make Sys Admins illegal. It is like the U.S. government saying it is legal to study marijuana with a licence, but we have no intention of granting such a licence.
This could be a subversive plot by Microsoft to cut down on the marketshare of Linux. The public perception is usually that Microsoft products are easier to use, thus without a sys admin, they will choose to Microsoft.
Best of the rest
Fans of Hubbard emerge from cupboard
Scientologists and their critics square up
You don't know you ass from your elbow
Continued Reg abuse of English provokes invective
265 words and counting...
Company sets new email disclaimer length world record