Slashdot Mirror
PI License May Soon Be Required for Computer Forensics
buzzardsbay writes "The good folks over at Baseline Magazine have an intriguing — and worrisome — report on a movement to limit computer forensics work to those who have a Private Investigator license or those who work for licensed PI agencies. According to the story, pending legislation would limit the specialized task of probing deep into computer hard drives, network and server logs for telltale signs of hacking and data theft to the same people who advertise in the Yellow Pages for surveillance on cheating spouses, workers' compensation fraud and missing persons. Those caught practicing computer forensics without a license could face criminal prosecution."
Am I breaking the law for this? 3.14159268
I thought this article was about the irrational number at first.
I would think that requiring an Investigative license for doing invetigative work would be a good thing.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Nerd rage aside here, the programs in question aren't dangerous, nor do the operators necessarily have to have expertise to use them. What purpose could this legislation possibly serve?
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
Could I be reminded as to why this is a problem?
Texas already requires that computer forensics investigators be licensed PIs. The requirement isn't just window dressing, either. Getting a PI license is tough there. That's why there are only about a dozen licensed computer forensics investigators in entire state. Um, and Media Sentry sure as hell ain't one of them...
New snoop-proofing: chmod -R 000 / Anyone who tries to access your drive is obviously trying to perform computer forensics.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The larval hacker stares in wonder at the bird, for he understands it not. The average hacker dreads the coming of the bird, for he fears its message. The master hacker continues to poke at the drive's file allocation table with a sector editor, for he does not know that the bird has come and gone.
How is this a bad thing? Requiring a PI license would imply some level of legitimacy.
"So long as computer forensic specialist implies a PI license" AND NOT "a PI license implies a computer forensic specialist".
This is actually a really good incentive to get people and businesses to start using secure operating systems like OpenBSD and Trusted Solaris. Both of those projects put a major emphasis on providing the most secure operating system possible.
Of the two, I personally prefer OpenBSD. It's a rock-solid UNIX-style system coded by some of the greatest software developers of our time. Their strenuous security audits have resulted in a system that is near impenetrable by those who wish for malice. They even maintain their own hyper-secure versions of some other major open source projects, like Apache's http daemon.
If it becomes costly to resort to computer forensics, it may just be best to use software that is very secure in the first place, to avoid the need for a licensed PI.
After all PI's get to drive around in their employer's red Ferrari and have witty repartee with the English Estate manager (who may or may not be ghostwriting the employer's books) while having casual sexual relationships with clients. In Hawaii. Am I right here folks?
Ubiquitously - A Ubiquity Developer Community
Although I don't think the license should be a PI license. Rather, it should be computer forensics license. Someone with a PI license doesn't necessarily know jack about computers.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Doesn't this simply say that you have to be licenced to do computer forensic work for hire? What does it really say about doing it on your own PC just to learn about it? I suspect there's some mislead impressions being taken here...
I know I'm not supposed to read the article but this is about needing a PI license work for a licensed firm to testify is court. First thing I would tack on would be they should also have there PE licensed firm or not. Yes it's a bit of a slippery slope it might also get the Secret Service and the FBI to get there agents some decent skills since every time I had interaction with it a tar.gz file was unfathomable to them and everything involves lot of baby steps and spoon feeding. Unfortunately most of these investigators are just using some pretty badly written applications and get stumped by anything with real encryption or not running windows, on the good side encase and similar is a good first step in the evidence chain.
No sir I dont like it.
Considering that in some states becoming a licensed PI requires paying a fee and nothing else, I'm not sure the significance of this (other than there will be a lot more wannabe cops running around). Considering the median salary for a PI in the US is ~$32K (wikipedia), if all the CF folks out there have to get PI licensed it should certainly push that up a bit. Man this is idiotic.
I think I speak on behalf of anyone who reads your post when I say...
What?!
... does it mean I need to grow a big moustache, and do I get a Ferrari with it?
...would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks.
Afterall, it shows "hidden" files and directories. I wonder how many standard Unix file system commands this law will cover.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I think the case of one of the doctors that prosecutor Mary Beth Buchanan went after illustrates a problem with the whole idea of licensing professions. The defense found that all of Buchanan's little hoochies who had testified against him, lying and saying he had traded sex for pain killers, had committed massive perjury, but he's still lost his license. Even if he gets totally exonerated he's not going to be able to legally work in his own profession until he gets the license back. Who the fuck is the state to tell people that they cannot pursue a peaceful profession while they are not sitting in prison? So what if you have incompetent doctors and such. I have news for you, do you know what they call the guy who graduates with the lowest possible passing score in medical school after he leaves medical school? That's right, doctor. We still grant licenses to people who are barely worth their alma mater's acreditation.
This won't do a thing for forensic services' professionalism. It doesn't even make sense. PI work is very different from forensics. Comparing PI work to forensics is as asinine as comparing a field agent or cop to a forensic examiner.
Besides, the state is always free to hire total whackjobs who just so happen to have a degree and some sort of license. Just do a search on theagitator.com for the stories about Dr. Hayne. Lovely character, and system that supports him. Guess what. He has a license.
If you're any sort of a system administrator and you haven't heard about OpenBSD or Trusted Solaris, then you're incompetent, plain and simple. You can read up about them at the sites below.
OpenBSD: http://openbsd.org/
Trusted Solaris: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/trustedsolaris/
Some states -- Alabama, Colorado and Idaho for examples -- don't even require a Private Investigator license for Private Investigators. (They may of course require a business license if you're doing it as a business.) Some of the places that do require a license don't have any kind of test for it, you just fill out the paperwork.
That said, some of the organizations of PI businesses in above states are pushing for licensing requirements -- as is common with trade guilds everywhere.
-- Alastair
This is just protectionism...
Most states have ridiculous requirements for getting a PI license. You basically can't get one in many states unless you've been a police officer. There is no public interest reason to do this. Requiring the PI license for this is just a gift to all the people who already have PI licenses.
I haven't looked at computer forensics recently, but when I did (roughly five years ago), there were some problems with it. Basically, because of the way that courts certify experts to testify in court, it was impossible to hire a computer forensic expert to work for the defense. It went something like this:
1. To testify as an expert in court, you have to be a member of the leading professional body for your field.
2. The leading professional body of computer forensic experts forbade its members from working for the defense.
Obviously that's problematic. Hopefully it's changed by now.
The other thing I thought was really funny was the way that most computer crime labs staff up with "experts". Rather than hiring people with computer science degrees and training them on how to do police work, they tend to hire police officers and then train them on computer forensics. The good ole boy system at work.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
They started it with mandatory licensing. I mean, come on, a license to sell a house? What advanced training does that require? But each group, when it gets big enough, lobbies for this protection of its turf. In NJ you need a license to be an interior decorator.
As someone who works in the computer forensics training field, I see all types. There are thousands of people knocking down the door now trying to get into computer forensics. Many are former law enforcement, but with absolutely no computer experience at all. They figure forensics work is just like dusting for fingerprints - you take a one week course and you're done. And they flunk out of IACIS exams left and right. With the new E-Discovery laws in place, and a greater public awareness of this job field, the problem is getting worse over time.
Requiring a PI may be good to keep the field small, to people that really want to pursue this work. I've just seen too many receptionists and desk jockeys enter computer forensics for the money, then forget to use a write blocker and overwrite evidence - whoops!
Posting anonymously... because... yea!
so are they going to make the computer nerds also learn how to stalk people's significant other's, that they think are boning other people on the side, to get the license? Now not only will system admins know what you're looking at online they'll know who you're seeing on the side. Just seems like Bureaucratic waste to me by representatives that don't have the slightest idea what they are legislating about.
It seems to me that a license for such work isn't wholly undesirable. I'm sure the main issue would be the cost and time it takes to obtain such a license.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
A guy who comes home and finds his door kicked in does not get to collect finger prints from his house to prove who did it. Frankly, there is no reason why the CEO's nephew should be allowed to pick through a log file like he picks his nose and, upon seeing an IP address with 66.6 in it be allowed to declare 'This is who hacked our computer.'
Yes, it's another unneeded tax, but it's not as bad as the summary makes it sound. Right now, any one can claim to be a computer forensics specialist.
The bills being considered are only about forensic evidence presented in court.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Let me give you an example of South Carolina professional licenses. I am an engineer, a PE, licensed as an engineer by the state. My degree is in Chemical Engineering, yet my PE license says nothing about chemical engineering... it is no different from a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, or structural engineer, or any other engineer. I can officially stamp the blueprints for your house, despite the fact I have absolutely no experience in construction or building practice whatsoever. Tne only thing that stops me is ethical guidelines and my own conscience -- neither of which stop a PI.
I Wish I had mod points
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Anyone else read this as a "pi" license and wonder WTF the headline was about?
IMHO, they should only require the license if you perform investigations (but NOT merely incidental to a repair!) for hire or before you present evidence to a court.
Restricted to that, I don't think I'd have much of a problem with it. But you're right, if it means that we have to be licensed to do basic administrative duties, screw that.
So...I know it's against the whole Slashdot mindset to read the article, but I at least skimmed it, and here's what I got out of it.
1. It's a South Carolina thing (And who lives in S.C., anyways? Seriously.)
2. It's only in the case of evidence in court cases. (i.e., you'd have to have a PI license to submit evidence gleaned from a computer HD).
So all you people freaking out, even kiddingly, about not being able to tag -a at the end of your ls commands, you can calm down.
Your job is quite safe without getting a PI license. You can dig around and uncover evidence in your network all you like, and you can take normal actions upon that evidence, such as tracing IPs and contacting authorities etc, all the usual stuff. What you can't do is provide what you find in your network as evidence in a court case, that is all. Someone else has to check your place out and then do the testifying themselves. Basically the court does not consider you an accredited expert witness under this legislation. If that is required, a temp PI computer forensic guy can be brought in, collect what is needed, and then he goes somewhere else (he's not into being a network admin, he's got more places to investigate), leaving your position intact.
I would think that requiring an Investigative license for doing invetigative work would be a good thing.
Yes, especially if you want to get paid. Imagine being hired by a company to do some forensic work, and you've found out all kinds of interesting things, and then it makes it to court, and it's all thrown out because you didn't understand and follow basic rules on how to handle evidence, and what's legal and not legal to do.
Good luck getting paid by the employer after losing the case for them. In some jurisdictions you might even face liability or criminal charges.
I've looked into the process, and in some states it's not too bad - IIRC some states require a period of apprenticeship, you can't just take a test.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes I do agree that state licensing is rather abysmal. I see where you're coming from. I'm a pathologist. Yet my state medical license states that I can legally practice medicine and surgery (which is rather insane if you ask any reasonable person). On the other hand, there must be some way to say that a particular computer forensics lab is not just some shady operation, especially if the evidence provided is going to be presented in court. Although it shouldn't be a PI license that provides this evidence.
I misread the headline as being licensed to state pi to a certain number of decimal places...
omg, you're retarded right?
GO BACK INSIDE!
Anybody in Colorado can be PI. I think there are few states that don't require a license.
I think he's basically saying that you should avoid having to go back and search through your logs for evidence of an intrusion by using software that was designed to avoid such intrusions in the first place.
The government can't permit any kind of balance of power between it and the citizens. It's trying to protect its scandals from being exposed. And in this post 9/11 hysteria, it should be a pretty easy pull.
What?
I don't mean to offend anybody, but law enforcement, and private investigating, are not the most accedemically demanding professions. Yet many in those fields feel vastly more qualified than any techno-weenie.
I think it would be great fun for PIs to have an idea of what the techies really have to know. I would be willing to bet, a lot of them couldn't handle it.
There are more or less 193 countries out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries) ...
le sigh.
-- If I were a fish, I'd be wet
Any PI who engages in (or has engaged in on their behalf) computer forensics should have a certification or degree in that field.
Considering the boneheads who manage to obtain the former, there will be damn few who get the latter, and the whole thing falls apart
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You won't need a license to go digging through your own hard drive. What you do need a license for is to go digging through other people's hard drives. That seems like a good thing. Among other things, it probably means that Best Buy can't go on fishing expeditions through your hard drives anymore.
I bet it won't even help maintaining a proper chain of custody. When they see the PI fail in court as much as the techno-dudes, it'll fail.....
I'm so getting a buttler named Higgins......
Hardly. Why should someone be required to get a license to follow someone or take pictures, but not to examine the contents of their hard drive which could contain more personal information than they would ever glean from a normal investigation?
On the other hand, there must be some way to say that a particular computer forensics lab is not just some shady operation, especially if the evidence provided is going to be presented in court.
There are a couple of ways. First, courts certify expert witnesses. If you use a certified expert witness, his testimony is presumed accurate.
Second, and much stronger, is the process itself. Our legal system operates on the adversarial system: each side opposes the other, bringing its own evidence and analysis before the judge and/or jury. Either can bring in experts, and either can refute the testimony of the other. If the forensics lab is questionable, a competent attorney (and most are at least competent) will challenge the labs methods and results. It works surprisingly well.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Gun hell, I want an RPG.
I have to call BS here. During a court case, the "expert witness" was testifying concerning medical & dental practice software packages.
When asked what made him so experienced in the field, the guy answered, and I kid you not:
"Oh, I browsed the web for 4 hours on the topic."
If you blinked there, join the club. Even worse, the judge BOUGHT that line.
To quote Daffy Duck: "You call this a close-up?!?!?"
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
I guess it's too much to expect
It was a cold blustery winter day in Chicago, the kind of cold that chills
McDonalds coffee from "blistering shreds of dangling skin" hot to merely
blistering hot. I downed the last gulp of coffee in my office on the 39th
floor of the Acme building when she walked in the door. A sultry gorgeous
dame, with long billowing blonde hair, and deep green eyes that burned with
angst, and a figure that could pop out eyeballs in a gay bar. I tried to look
her in the eyes but she had a mystique about her, something that told a man
to lower his gaze. I complied with my gut feeling and I wasn't disappointed.
She was to cleavage what Mount Rushmore is to monuments, and in that
second before she spoke, I forgot all about lab reports, stake-out schedules,
and my lost suit at Kim Speedee Dry Cleaning. Her dress was so tight I could
read the J.C. Penny's label on her underware, and I was damned glad for that.
After an awkward moment she spoke. "Mr. Noir, I have a laptop here. I think
my husband has been using the built in web cam to spy on me when he's out
of town...." I had to stop her there. "Just a minute Miss, I don't even know
who you are." And she had the perfect answer when she replied with "I'm
the widow of the late Johann Marstad, owner of Marstad Industries LTD.
I'm Elenor Marstad. Will you look at this computer and tell me what you
find?"
Of course I had to know more. "Where and when do you normally use this
computer?" I asked inquiringly, and once again she didn't disappoint.
"Mostly late at night, in my bedroom." she unhesitatingly answered. My
mission was rather clear. Find the pictures of a stunning beauty, on a
laptop, showing her using it late at night in her bedroom. I'm a licensed
PI so I have the right to do that. It's right there on the license, just
after the part that gives us the right to spy on ordinary Americans, just
before the section that reads "License to argue with Chief of Police."
I was about to take the laptop when my secretary Sally came in...
So what this means is that every RIAA "investigator" in court will have to have a PI license and possibly have to understand what level of investigation is legal in each state before going to court. In the end, won't this just devalue the PI license if even tech savvy 13 yr olds have one? Even worse, would you really want a 13 yr old with a PI license?
Do you realize the damage that an unlicensed real estate professional can do to a home buyer or home seller?
Let's say you buy a house - a $400,000 investment - and you find out later that the home has
inside wiring problems
dry rot and other water damage
termites
**a mountain of casino debt attached to the property**
oh and the unlicensed jerk who brokered this sale - and the former homeowner - have disappeared.
This, and 10,000 other issues, are why you never buy a house without a licensed realtor.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
So, when a copyright violator gets away (or tries to) with unauthorized reproduction of other people's artwork by claiming, she was investigated by an unlicensed investigator, the entire Slashdot is cheering for her. And I only picked the posts moderated at 5...
Other times, we are capable of looking at the requirement with a cooler head and recognize it as worrisome. Even if one accepts, that the classic gun-wielding detectives of the Dr. Watson kind should be licensed (and Dr. Watson was not), it should not be necessary for a computer forensics experts.
Licenses in general are a terrible idea, because they are issued (and revoked!) by the Executive branch with very little recourse from the Courts — in fact, this is why the (Executive) government likes them so much. They allow them to twist the businessmen's arms without the troubles of lawsuits. In the city of New York, for example, a driver can not even appeal a driving citation to the real courts — one's only venue is "Traffic Court", where the "judge" is, in fact, a city employee and part of the Executive branch... (That's right — the separation of powers will not help you, if the government of New York City decides to ban you from the "public" roads.)
Making yet another activity require a license is, indeed, a worrisome development.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Various definitions:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aforensic&submit2=Google
More colloquially one could describe forensics as merely data gathering evidence (whether it be used in a formal court of law or not). A parent using forensics software on a child's computer may not be considered forensics to the FBI, but it probably would be to the parent or child. Much the same for internal company forensics. Strict definitions need to keep up with colloquial usage.
I sell Sniffer (the original) for a living. I guess that means I'll need to get a copy of the end-users PI License before I can accept an order......
Still ridiculous. Are they going to require a PI license for any other profession to give expert testimony?
Whether "all car repair shops in NY are honest" or not, the licenses do present a mechanism that can hold them accountable and close them down if sufficient effort is put into enforcement. Licensure can often atrophy into a simple tax collected by a licensing authority that doesn't perform proper enforcement procedures for the licenses it issues, but that's not the idea.
Since a private investigator has a license, he's on the hook if he presents incorrect or bullshit evidence to the court. Ordinarily I can't go to a PI with pictures of my wife and my neighbor taken through open windows, and have him photoshop them into obscene pictures that I can take to court for a divorce proceeding, presented as evidence bearing the imprimatur of a licensed investigation. The court would indeed take that type of evidence more seriously than if you just had some friend of yours photoshop his dick into her mouth himself. That wouldn't be admitted as evidence. The PI has got a license; your friend doesn't. If the PI is indeed found to have violated the terms of his license by doing that, he'll lose his license, and may be subject to fines and jail time in addition to those he'd get for falsification of evidence.
A license if just a scrap of paper that means you paid someone for it. Perhaps you passed a test too. That means about as much as that 10th grade biology final that you crammed for the night before and then erased from your brain after the next morning. I'm much more interested in holding people ACCOUNTABLE for their actions than having the government "protect" me.
A license is not just "a scrap of paper" that required a fee for a licensing authority. After your 12th grade finals are over you may find that scraps of paper can do surprising things. They can imbue you with certain legal responsibilities. If you practice medicine, or practice law, or conduct private investigations, you can do certain things the rest of us can't, and you are on the hook for doing them correctly- you're held ACCOUNTABLE for your actions. Doctors, lawyers, and private investigators each bear their own types of accountability. If you make a legal promise to conduct yourself in some way, and the promise you made then gets "erased from your brain after the next morning", you're going to find yourself in a world of hurt. You'll find it's not like studying for finals at all.
A forensic investigator is gathering information that might certainly be used to put someone in jail. "Oh no, I need a license to do that? Waaah!" Well, duh! What if you're incompetent, or a liar, or the darling of law enforcement because you find child porn on every machine that comes in? Do you really think that type of behavior should be legal, or that evidence from your lab should be admissible in courts?
I don't know what he's complaining about; he stands to gain too. They're trying to make everyone imagine that a handful of film-noir private eyes are planning to take over the computer
This sounds like it is the first step heading in the direction of topic recently discussed here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/03/2056223
Which itself seems to be heading in the direction of this:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/0218246&tid=172
It is really an indirect way of doing the above. The first step towards it anyway. I think that lawmakers should stay out of situations they don't understand or have the power to control anyway. Just like the other aspects of the computer industry it, itself, has created "licenses" in the form of certifications. Should those not be enough to test competence?
To me this sound much like a need for control (most likely because of fear of not understanding).
Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
The usual, IANAL, this isn't legal advice, etc. etc...
However, I am a current, licensed private investigator in Ohio who happens to do digital forensics from time to time. So, I believe that I can shed some experience (or spread some BS) on this subject.
Private Investigation in Ohio is governed by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4749. To summarize:
- You have to be a licensed investigator to perform investigations for hire. (Meaning you get paid.)
- The exceptions (and there are specific ones listed) boil down to a) insurance adjustors, arson inspectors, forensic accountants, etc., and b) it's part of your normal job (such as a network administrator tracking down a break-in. My example, not the law's.)
- Anything you do for yourself is, well, for yourself, and doesn't require a license.
A lot of other states have a similar setup.Now, without having read the actual proposed law in South Carolina (this is /., after all), I would say that it sounds like a bad idea. An investigator license is not a magic wand to say that you are an expert, and the summary makes it sound like having a PI license gives you almost automatic "expert witness" status. (From my IANAL point of view, that is a specific determination that the court has to make, and normally they don't take it lightly.
PI licenses are used to regulate who goes around snooping into other people's information. There are specific criminal penalties for performing investigation services, for hire, without a license; I believe that it keeps the people honest (in Ohio, Homeland Security oversees the licensing!), and prevents a lot of wasted time and money on some Magnum wannabe who ends up doing more damage to his clients cases/circumstances than good.
As far as I can tell, those who do purely "digital forensics" are the equivalent of DNA lab techs or fingerprint analysts: They perform a technical function whose methods and findings are narrow, reviewable, and (should be) reproducible. The aspect of "investigation" only comes in when you begin to track down names, background, places, and faces relevant to the process. Despite what CSI: Miami tries to put out, lab guys are not normally the folks interviewing the suspects and poking holes in alibis; they deal with facts and findings. (More like Abbie on NCIS.)
Which leads to the counter-proposal from the Nevada situation: If the courts already have a tried-and-true method of determining what an "expert witness" is, there really isn't a need for another licensing agency. Yes, courts can and do rely on licensing for some determinations, but again, they use experience, knowledge, reproducibility, and accepted methodology as real determining factors. That way, a medical license isn't an automatic "my opinion is indisputable" stamp.
I think South Carolina is either overreacting or trying to pay off a party contributor....but hey, what do I know? (Or, how could I find out? :-)
And yes, I realize that I said I "do computer forensics." Being a geek with a license, it's easier (and much faster and cheaper for the client) to do a forensic run-through myself than to hire it out to a lab every time. But I also know my own limitations, and quickly admit when/if I ever get over my head and need to call in the hard-core experts.
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
This is about as poorly thought through as Germany's "hacker tools" law (and the pending bill in the UK).
US Legislators, fuck off. Fuck off and die.
Have you checked your approval ratings lately? I wonder if spending your time on bullshit like this is why your approval ratings are so low.
Here's a little plan.
1. Impeach bush/cheney and basically most of the executive branch.
2. repeal the PATRIOT act, military commissions act et al
3. stop the NSA spying
Where to go from there (ie, increasing social programs, ridding the nation of the IRS) is widely dependent on one's particular views
However, at least imho, until 1-3 above are accomplished, no one will see you as anything but a bunch of idiot shmucks.
If you're not going to get on 1-3, please hurry up with the fucking off and dying.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
From the Code of Virginia:
9.1-138. Definitions.
""Private investigator" means any individual who engages in the business of, or accepts employment to make, investigations to obtain information on (i) crimes or civil wrongs; (ii) the location, disposition, or recovery of stolen property; (iii) the cause of accidents, fires, damages, or injuries to persons or to property; or (iv) evidence to be used before any court, board, officer, or investigative committee. "
and
9.1-139. Licensing, certification, and registration required; qualifications; temporary licenses.
"C. No person shall be employed by a licensed private security services business in the Commonwealth as armored car personnel, courier, armed security officer, detector canine handler, unarmed security officer, security canine handler, private investigator, personal protection specialist, alarm respondent, central station dispatcher, electronic security sales representative, electronic security technician's assistant, or electronic security technician without possessing a valid registration issued by the Department, except as provided in this article."
Note, there is very similar language under New York State laws as well. In fact it's all damn near boiler plate, they are so similar. I would suspect several other states therefore have comparable laws on the books already (No, I have not yet bothered to RTFA). Just because lots of people have been doing it for a while because they were/are ignorant of the law does not excuse it. They are committing a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any decent opposing council will move to exclude any evidence produced by an unlicensed/unregistered company or person.
9.1-149. Unlicensed activity prohibited; penalty.
"C. Any person convicted of a violation of subsections A or B shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. "
The last sentence says it all.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Generally speaking, you would be considered a "proprietary employee". You are not offering that primary skillset on a for-hire basis to more than your primary employer.
I think the real question here should be what business does the government have in determining who can fill a job and who can not? Should it not be up to the employer/court/defense/prosecution/police department who is hiring such a person. In my experience certifications all to often mean next to nothing, besides you can pass a test or have enough money to pay the licensing fees (which most often vanish into completely unrelated branches of the government). And I think all to often "licensing" "permits" and most other pre action permissions from government are either used to discriminate agents a one party or another or are the equivalent of treating the individual as if they "guilty" of something and have to prove their "innocence" before they are allowed to proceed. In my opinion government should always be the one forced to prove they need to disallow someone from doing as they wish, the alternative often leads down a dark path with ever increasing restrictions on the individual. States should of course where they feel appropriate put in place COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY/NO STRINGS ATTACHED systems of certification for added credentials, but never mandatory systems. Otherwise we may all be eventually forced to take certifications for the most simplistic of things to remain "legal", such as repairing our own car, or installing our own tub/sink. Don't joke, I bet if you told someone about half of the licenses and permits that exist today (Residence Permits, Building Permits, zoning permits, electrical permits, elctrician licences, Pesticide licenses, truck, bike, chauffer licenses (some of which by the way REQUIRE drug testing)) they would have gotten quite a chuckle out of such "insanity".
This can have really bad effects when trying to follow up on computer crime and essentially make it hopeless to take cases to prosecution.
I can on one hand understand that there is some need for procedures and chain of evidence, but there can be really tough side-effects.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
this is a desireable development, considering data theft and such, it'll make it a hell lot easier to sue the shits out of those pesky anal ysts.
sleep well suckers =)
Is it ironic that you can't spell academically correct? Maybe we should have a spelling license!
"I'm a pathologist. Yet my state medical license states that I can legally practice medicine and surgery (which is rather insane if you ask any reasonable person"
Are you available to operate on my mother in law?
"Your Honor, I looked at the access logs on my server and saw that I was attacked by the IP address that was assigned to the defendant at the time."
You need a PI license for that? It's bullshit. A PI license isn't about competency or ethics, it's about getting more money out of people.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"Grandfather" is a verb? What does it mean?
Texas already requires that computer forensics investigators be licensed PIs. The requirement isn't just window dressing, either. Getting a PI license is tough there. That's why there are only about a dozen licensed computer forensics investigators in entire state. Um, and Media Sentry sure as hell ain't one of them...
One key outcome from requiring a license is it limits competition by putting up a barrier to entry - which helps those with licenses keep their rates higher. As someone who has held a license (not PI) it is a good deal; despite the hassle of taking an annual exam it enabled me to get a bonus every year.
Of course, licenses don't always make sense - look at barbers for instance. I can walk into any barber shop and watch them cut hair and see teh results. If they are incompent I can walk out; and even if I don't discover that until to late a week later and my hair is back; yet we license barbers.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I am not amused sir! Consider this a warning.
I am the legal owner of the tznvy.pbz domain and I don't take kindly to people advertising fake users on it. I mean really, who is rpbzbab anyways? I put out enough 550 user unknown messages as it is.
Is ROT13 your real name or something?
Try signing your posts with your real email address out there like a man dammit!
I see it as more of a push to force more computer forensic folks to learn the legal requirements, and possibly some of the technical requirements, of what they are doing. Anyone following the Groklaw request for input on the Lindor case should see just how poorly the "forensic expert" for the RIAA did his job.
Amen, and prepare yourself for a license to have sex. My new booty camp will train you in one week to pass the "I'm good enough to have sex with" exam. Only US$43K per person for all the sex that you can handle for one week in order to ensure that you can pass the exam. An online training camp is soon to be released with live video instructors and group chat discussion.
When a piece of (proposed) legislation uses a term, it's not the "colloquial" interpretation. Strict definitions need to keep up with colloquial usage. So you're saying that computer geeks should henceforth refer to their PCs "hard drives", that they should call a hard drive "memory", and that we should start referring to their desktop wallpaper as a "screensaver"? Because those are *all* terms that are colloquially mis-used.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Only those with professional motorsport experience will be issued drivers licenses.
Only dentists will be able to brush your teeth.
Only TV doctors can prescribe ibuprofin.
Only penguins will be allowed to use Linux.
And so the logic goes...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
This post shows that have literally no knowledge of linguistic theory whatsoever. Stop commenting on something you don't understand.
Ha! Another nerdinho thinking his stuff is hard and worthy of consideration.
Hate to kick your puppy, kid, but computer science is not rocket science. We're not in the late '80s anymore. Anyone can master it.
Face it, your "skills" are on the same par with the garbage man's.
the article is very interesting because it invites us to consider whether the Shadow wants us to exterminate hacking or not...
Hacking could be exterminated. why has that not be done?
this is a line of thought that we should pursue
I have felt for some time that all these "vulnerabilities" we most likely intentional but intended for prefered customers only, the idea being that select, priviliged parties have the right to access anything and update programming as needed to facilitate that activity
tat would explain why no amount of patching has ever slowed up the hackers; 2007 has been a banner year for the bad boys
I've said it before but it bears repeating: if our commercial interests want to do business over the net the hacking has to come to a stop.
it will take a while to convince us that hacking has been stopped even after it is in fact stopped.
all executable programming should be signed by the responsible party.
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.
It's also about going to the Bahamas for a CE seminar in January and having it be tax deductible because CE is required for professional certification.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
To use the more authoritative Concise Oxford English Dictionary: [adjective]
- Relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime
- relating to courts of law
[noun:]
- forensic tests or techniques At any rate your nit-picking a point that is pointless to nitpick (what some people would call being a grammar-Nazi). And you sounded quite arrogant and self-aggrandizing about it. The grandparent was merely stating the obvious: that ordinary people doing there jobs don't need to worry about getting a PI license. I think everybody seems to understand this. You made obvious mistakes in your original rebuttal, and even more mistakes in your defense. Sometimes it's better just to admit you are wrong than to "show your tonsils" as people colloquially say. Yep, as you said, "I guess it's too much to expect
I've got a better idea; lets just make it illegal for anyone to be smarter than anyone else, that way we can protect StupidPeople from anyone who could do anything remotely intelligent and take advantage of their pea brains. Oh wait, I think Kurt Vonnegut already sketched this out. Way to go FUD-mongering luddite sheeple. If you haven't read Harrison Bergeron, I highly recommend it, its the eventual conclusion of this kind of thinking. One round of lobotomies, coming up!
From someone who is in the industry, the requirements extend far beyond the courtroom. The collection process is considered a "forensic collection procedure". Password cracking and general processing is considered "forensic processing". There is a chain of custody that must be maintained throughout the life of the data (from collection to presentation in court to storage afterwards).
And, by the way, forensic evidence is not always presented in court. Several cases I worked on never made it to court as the evidence was too damning....it was useless to fight against the obvious.
Now, to help your argument, you might say that forensic evidence has been prepared for presentation to the court. It is, however, still forensic evidence even if it hasn't made it to court yet. To expand your incomplete and misinterpreted definition above, the term "forensic" means "legal", so the process of collecting forensic evidence provides that the evidence maintains its integrity until it reaches court in a legally presentable form.
My advise though, is to stay out of the industry. Lawyers cannot be trusted.
"Lame" - Galaxar
I will be driving a Ferrari and living in Hawaii in no time!!
It's a trap!
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Nah; don't bother. Those two terms are generally considered synonyms.
(Of course, they aren't really. That is, it's possible to be incorrect without being colloquial. What that substitution really does is lose information, since "colloquial" is a proper subset of "incorrect".
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I can on one hand understand that there is some need for procedures and chain of evidence, but there can be really tough side-effects.
Think of yourself as the defendant. Would you want a court to accept evidence against you that didn't have a legally verifiable chain of evidence?
To put it another way, would you want a court to accept evidence against you that the prosecution could have created with a text editor?
I have seen people fired on the basis of evidence that the sysadmin admitted (during private bragging) he had faked. And yes, I was really sorry that I didn't have a tape recorder in my pocket at the moment.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I have already faced this problem here in Georgia, and I was challenged on the STAND while testifying in a case I did the computer forensic work on. I have been doing forensics for almost 7 years, but here in Georgia they had initially passed the law and was only waiting for the governor to sign it or veto it. Well it took a lot of work to get it vetoed and everyone I know called into the governor. However, they have since fixed the wording that was the reason for the veto. There is a great chance it will pass in Georgia this year. There is a body of the PI's that are moving together on this issue in every state. Any state that this has not been submitted yet, they are planning to submit it. Michigan just submitted it and it has passed one of the bodies it needs to so far. Look out for this to change the world of forensics. The issue is that most of the laws are making it a criminal felony with penalty of jail time if you get caught or if you are called to the stand for evidence you did collect without a PI license. Since this happened, I have done everything I could to prevent this law from passing, but since then I have become a PI to protect myself and to have business. It will be coming for all of you.
This is the article about my adventure.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/399
Scott Moulton
www.ForensicStrategy.com
Phone:770-926-5588
In Oz we must have a PI license for, basically, anything that involves looking at a persons private details without their knowledge. And for good reason. Do you want anyone to just hack your stuff cos they 'suspect' something?
As for forensics, it's one of the things keeping a handle on, and retaining some respectability for, an industry that is still niche here. Rather than letting it devolve to a situation where any shmo with an encase certificate can claim to be forensically sound.
axis discrepancy indicates hexagons beyond control anomaly
To give expert testimony you have to be accepted by the jurisdiction you are testifying in as an expert first. This is a very old concept. Please learn something about court procedure before excitedly exclaiming injustice.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
I do metadata extraction and database integration of corporate documents (though in california), I do not analyze or qualify logs or such- I analyze corporate dumps for retention and review- would this be covered under the pending legislation? what if our client were from SC? what if our offices in india did some of the work where there is no such thing as a PI license?
also I have been working in this field for almost 15 years now and it would be completely ridiculous if some moron who chases cheating wives with a camera were told by the state that he was more qualified to do my job than I am- and here in SF they only issue a limited # of PI licenses as PI's are allowed to carry a firearm.
just what we need. one day you may need a license to wipe your own ass with certified charmin.
FTA: "Forensics is a very new field. And now, anyone with a PI license can take an EnCase class [a popular computer examination tool] and declare themselves a forensic expert," this is a load of crap- I can tell you, having used encase that if you don't know your way around the innards of an OS or what the registry values mean you are going to screw up what you deliver and it will make the process of my job far worse- the last thing I want to do is have to be making more requests for re deliveries and having more useless and corrupt data that I need to sift through as my job is to extract and analyze forensic data because some stupid ambulance chasing PI who doesn't know what they are doing screwed up.
This whole thing sounds like it's in response to the irresponsible investigative techniques used by the RIAA, and the counterclaims filed by one of the defendants. I would've thought that /.ers would be jumping on this bandwagon right quick.
We are the 198 proof..
And will a computer forensics expert be able to gain that acceptance without a P.I. license? See the point now?
That's quite a leap. Make sure you have a double layer tin foil hat on when you make it.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
How is it a leap to say that if you can't legally practice computer forensics without a P.I. license, you won't be able to testify in court about it without a license? And, more importantly, why has computer forensics been singled out for this licensing requirement?
1.) Testifying about the data collected by credentialed forensic experts doesn't necessarily, and probably will not be construed as to require, being credentialed to actually collect such evidence.
2.) Computer forensics is NOT being singled out. This is obviously something that is poorly worded and too general/being taken too genreally - but one should understand basic legal concepts related to evidence if they are going to be collecting it - and creating credentials probably isn't a bad idea. Lack of a discernible chain of custody and spoliation are rampant in computer crimes/civil cases.
But what do I know? I'm just a sworn law enforcement officer (fire marshal) as a part time job, certified to collect evidence and with court experience behind me. And my DA brings in experts to testify about what my evidence means - experts who typically are not people who could actually collect the evidence themselves (because of skill sets, authority, etc.)
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.