I don't know how ACM works. I'm in IEEE.

I was basically coerced into joining, because if you pay $X to join, registration for IEEE conferences goes down by a much, much greater number.

Presumably, they have it set up this way because they ultimately make more money by selling your information to marketers (which they do).

So I would say that if the IEEE has a Code of Conduct, it completely lacks all legitimacy.

I hope some important IEEE people take note of this situation and correct it. Otherwise, I hope a more ethical organiziation arises that relegates IEEE to the dustbin.

Codes of Ethics mean so little, this would be a good time to make them more than lip service.

Wait... there are people who still think the ACM has relevance?

What does the relevance of ACM have to do with the ethical obligations of professionals, be they computing, or otherwise?

It's like the way the notion of Conflict of Interest has been marginalized as illustrated by no-bid contracts awarded to corporations which have strong ties to high level government employees.

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/gries/howbushoperates/haliburton.h...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-575356.html

It's like hiring a former Monsanto lobbyist to be the head of the FDA. It is objectionable.

Just because some (mostly) Saudi nationals allegedly hijacked some airplanes 12 years ago that doesn't mean we have to discard our ideals in the name of some fictional "war" on an ideology.

When exactly did ACM lose its relevance?

It was at least before I started college in 2002. There were some remnants of it, such as a few professors who listed it on their CVs, and we did read the code of ethics in CS1. But nothing serious and active. Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

The ACM is very relevant for academics who publish and attend conferences.