AISP members belong to an elite network of professionals that possess a vast base of knowledge unparalleled in the information security industry.
Whilst information security professionals may be members of other associations that certify their skills and knowledge, AISP aims to go beyond that by striving to give its members industry recognition nationally, regionally and globally, if they are both suitably qualified and are practicing members. This takes the AISP member to another level that raises the standing and distinguishes the member as a trusted and competent advisor and practitioner in information security.
AISP offers a range of membership categories, dependent upon your experience and aspirations.
|Membership Grade||Annual Membership Fee|
To apply, please download and send the completed form to the AISP secretariat.
To renew your membership, please check our payment page.
Members are expected to exhibit high standards of ethical conduct in their professional relationships and to act at all times in accordance with AISP’s values of:
Members are expected to exhibit high standards of professionalism, and:
Members are expected to fulfil their professional responsibilities including:
Members should recognise the potential for conflict of interests and take appropriate actions to avoid or resolve such conflicts including:
Applying for AISP membership includes the acceptance of the AISP Code of Conduct (CoC), and the member implicitly agrees to be bound by the disciplinary procedures outlined herein.
The AISP Disciplinary Committee (DC) will oversee any disciplinary proceedings, addressing itself specifically to complaints or issues relating to the CoC. The Committee membership will be determined by AISP appointment, usually from the membership, but may also include others such as independent non-members.
Complaints will only be considered if submitted in writing to the DC. Complaints can be lodged by AISP members, by members of the public, or by those associated with the alleged offender’s work (such as employers or co-workers). All complaints will be logged in a dedicated register and their progress tracked, with current status (but not necessarily details of the case) available at all times. The existence of a current complaint will be acknowledged in all references to that person’s membership status.
Apart from exceptional circumstances as determined by the DC, complaints must be lodged within 12 months of the alleged offence.
A “simple breach” is meant to describe a clearly defined single Code item breach that can be expected to be resolved by a brief and straightforward investigation. Initial investigation of apparently non-complex complaints will be handled by a hearing officer, in consultation with the complainant and the alleged offender. The hearing officer may choose to escalate the complaint for full investigation if it is found to exceed the “simple breach” definition, or may propose a final course of action (which may or may not include disciplinary sanction, depending on the finding).
The member may choose to accept the hearing officer’s recommendation. If the member objects, the complaint will be escalated to a full investigation.
The hearing officer must complete any “simple breach” investigation within 30 days, or the complaint (and possibly the hearing officer’s handling of it) will be escalated to a full investigation.
All other complaints will be immediately subject to the full investigation process.
The DC will be empowered to appoint an investigator, a sub-committee, or a work group to carry out the investigation on its behalf. Appointments would usually be expected to include subject experts relevant to the investigation.
For the purposes of simplifying this discussion we will refer to any/all of the three investigating individuals/groups in the preceding paragraph as the “Investigator”.
The Investigator will analyse all aspects of the complaint. The defendant will be notified by the Investigator of the complaint’s detail, and will be entitled to present appropriate defences, mitigations, and information to the Investigator.
Other members can be called to give evidence for or against the defendant. Needless to say, failing to be honest in such a situation is in itself a breach of the CoC, and will be prosecuted immediately under these procedures.
If required, the defendant can be accompanied or represented in any meetings with the Investigator.
At the completion of the proceedings (which must be within 90 days of the initial complaint unless the special verdict “Assumed guilty, further substantiation is being sought” is handed down) the Investigator will report to the DC with an appropriate recommendation.
If the Investigator reaches an initial finding of “Assumed guilty, further substantiation is being sought”, full details of the case will be examined by the DC to determine a time frame for the investigation. In normal circumstances that time frame will never exceed 12 months from the initial lodgement of the complaint.
The sanctions, recommended by the Investigator but finally approved and imposed by the Disciplinary Committee, include:
Fines may also be imposed, up to a maximum figure as agreed from time to time by the AISP Board. A member can accept the fine or choose instead to accept a matching sanction from those listed above.
Counselling may be recommended in all Sanctions up to and including Suspension. Acceptance and successful/effective completion of the counselling process may allow reduction of the severity of the Sanction if so recommended by the Committee.
All sanctions imposed by the DC will specify a duration, if appropriate, and detail any reinstatement process available to the defendant.
The DC will make its own judgement after reviewing the Investigator’s report and recommendations, and with due consideration for the defendant’s past behaviour. All sanctions will be noted in the member’s record.
Investigation results (verdict) will be made available to all interested parties on request while any penalty is in force.
Both the defendant and the complainant can appeal the initial decision, with the hearing process to be handled by an Investigator independent of the original process. Otherwise the appeals process will follow the same procedures as an Investigation. Only one appeal will be allowed unless exceptional circumstances or new evidence are brought to the DC.