Slashdot Mirror
PC Repair In Texas Now Requires a PI License
JohnnyNapalm writes "In some shocking news out of Texas, PC repair will now require a PI License. Surely this stands to have a substantial impact on small repair shops around the state if upheld. Never fear, however, as the first counter-suit has already been filed."
Unfortunately, the Slaughterhouse Cases already determined that a state-run cartel can push out individuals not meeting specific criteria.
Such a right to "sustain ones life through labor" simply does not exist at the Federal level... Now, they are pushing this under the Texas constitution, and I don't know for sure what the Texas constitution says about it, however likely, just like Louisiana, they probably don't guarentee a person's right to work in a particular field.
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
I hate to say this, but these people probably don't have a single leg to stand on legally, because this has all been through the courts before... of course, I could be wrong, and things could change. But I don't expect it to.
If Texas ruled you had the right to do any work between two knowing and consenting adults, then that would lead to situations potentially opening the way to prostitution (which I don't think should be illegal) or circumvention of licensing standards for other professions. Why do I need government permission to be a cop? I can pull over anyone I want, and by telling me that I can't, the government is making me unable to sustain my life through the labor of my choosing.
I think the biggest issue here, is that police and other criminology people are concerned that if a computer tech stumbles across illegal information on a computer, that since they are not a licensed private investigator, the evidence cannot in any way be used. Even if say, it's for a child-pornography case. "Your evidence was siezed improperly, sorry, but it's excluded, next time do things the right way!"
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
suddenoutbreakofidiocy
This should prevent Apple fans using Apple stores as places of worship in that state, since they'll have to close down.
"PC Repair in Texas now requires a pi license"
Want to fix PCs? Recite the first 100 decimal places of pi.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
IANAL, but I don't think PC Mag or "CW33" read the law. Per Section 4a1 and 4b, it only applies if you're specifically snooping in the data on the computer. It says nothing about normal repair. Not that someone disgruntled couldn't try to make a case out of it...
You can get two for one deals, fix your computer... AND hunt down your cheating husband!
In the name of the not so Texans around the globe, wtf is a PI license?
What the frack is going on with this world? What idiots are we electing that enact such stupid laws???!! So are we going to require car repairmen to also have PI licenses since cars contain computers? There are so many damn idiots in this world and most are located in various state and national capitals.
Yeah, but it's okay to shoot unarmed people you believe to be robbing your neighbor's house in the back with a shot gun there...so I guess it all evens out!
especially spyware with names like
resume.doc.com
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Please follow the links and see that the summary is wrong. The new law requires a PI license if you act as a private security consultant company (which can be an individual).
The relevant qualification for the Slashdot crowd are that you must
and do so by
IOW, you can't take into divorce court the notion that your spouse was having a cyber-affair based on having your computer looked at by the kid down the block. This doesn't appear to have much effect on most repair shops.
The text is here. Read it. The word "computer" appears in the text just once, so grep for the relevant part.
Don't know what the PIs are thinking. This is still Texas. They push too hard they'll get an applied lesson in You Don't Fuck with Another Man's Livelihood 101.
This is actually a good news. Finally IT becomes a decent profession. The more license a profession needs in order to operate the more it can charge and the more the public accept.
When you see a couple of strangers breaking the window on a neighbor's house and climbing in, that's a pretty well-founded belief.
Running when someone points a gun at you and tells you to freeze is also pretty damned stupid. If you believe the police officer who was an eyewitness, the folks in question ran at such a trajectory as to be closer to the neighbor with the gun when they were shot than they were when he told them to freeze -- which is exceptionally stupid, as it gives said party with the gun grounds to be legitimately afraid for their life, and thus the ability to shoot. If you're going to run away from the person with the gun who told you to freeze -- which is a bad idea to start with -- you want to run unambiguously away, not towards and then turn.
I don't fault the grand jury for deciding not to prosecute; I would have gone the same way.
loool , we laugh a lot with texas in europe. lool what an insane state.
According to this wouldn't it be illegal for a network admin to do forensic research on a security breach? At the very least it seems it would make any evidence found inadmissible in court.
The state of Texas may be re-assured that its geeks are PIs, but I think many ordinary customers would be more inclined to hire a non-PI.
Seems to me that being a non-PI-repair-guy would be a selling point as having a PI license emphasizes that the geek is there to snoop, not to fix.
Speaking as someone who does not have a PI license, thanks Tx.
Nullius in verba
Every good man is a PRIVATE "investigator"... with or without license...
The new law requires a PI license if you act as a private security consultant company (which can be an individual).
The amended "Sec. 1702.104." reads (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to [...] (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property.
Technician: "Your hard disk's bad..." ..."
Detective: "Could that have made the novel I was working on disappear?"
Technician: "Sure,
Detective: "Book 'im, Dano"
From TFA:
"In order to obtain said license, technicians must receive a criminal justice degree or participate in a three-year apprenticeship. Those shops that refuse to participate will be forced to shut down. Violators of the new law can be hit with a $4,000 dollar fine and up to a year in jail, penalties that apply to customers who seek out their services."
How does that make any sense? I used to work in help desk, and I would be asked to "snoop" data when looking for viruses ALL THE TIME. Although the above poster, who argued that he can't be a cop because of the lack of credentials, it's completely different from that.
Sure, you should have a license, but make that some variant of the CISSP (probably associate). At least that would be beneficial to the person.
PI license seems like OVERKILL to the max on this issue. 3 years of apprenticeship? Criminal justice degree? Who in the computer industry would graduate with a criminal justice degree? Probably not too many...........
I guess this will be good for the people in the industry in Texas, as the supply of techs will become lower therefore the demand will raise...... higher incomes for those techs who can hack it.
Governments need much better knowledge about technology so they don't do stupid things like this, maybe have an official governmental position.....
First thing I do on any computer I work on in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Idaho or New Mexico is do a search for Child Porn with keywords and a hash check. Hash check works because some of the child porn has been out there since it was just NNTP and email and the particular images are very easy to find. If you can help build a better perv trap for me and others like me, please do I am not a programmer. Over 20 lowlifes turned into the police and feds including a local bank manager, a coffee shop owner and a HS physics teacher. I hope to turn in many more. Have any of y'all done this when you found child porn working in IT, or did you turn a blind eye?
All this means is in order for Geek Squad (or anyone) to perform forensic data recovery for example, on behalf of your local PD, or even a PI, the Geek Squad technician would also need a PI license.
No. Shit. It would be an obvious loophole otherwise.
Every computer repair person in the damned state doesn't qualify under (a)(1), sorry pcmag/slashdot. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand this, but you DO have to have more than a 5th grade reading level to backtrack from (b) to (a)(1) I guess. Besides, your shit is "public" as soon as you hand your PC to the repair person. This is not some sinister, evil law, douche bags.
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY.
(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
And please stop posting news of new laws that are obviously not reviewed by real lawyers or people who can fucking read at least. PLEASE.
Damn it Jim, im a computer-repair technician, not a private investigator.
These articles are a ridiculous over-reaction to the actual law, which I just spent a few minutes actually reading. Nothing in that law has anything to do with computer repair. It DOES have something to do with companies that offer computer forensic services for legal actions, and some repair shops do that, but you shouldn't be going to Corner Computer Repair, or Joe Computer Guy if you have a requirement for forensic work in a legal sense. If you actually think your computer was hacked, you need to get people with the kind of legal training that can get things done the way the legal system requires them to be done.
The law is in legalese, and therefore hard to read, but the only thing this applies to are people doing this for investigations of a legal nature. There is a long list of exemptions, including one for people who install and repair security devices.
For a bunch of people that claim to be rational and above superstition, you people are totally credulous when wild statements like this are made. The law is there, it's linked to, read it for yourself.
I suppose this is what happens when a PC-magazine tries to understand legal speak...
Then the Man has go-to guys everywhere to conduct covert computer forensics investigations that could turn up viable evidence that could be used in a court of law. Many small towns can't afford their own independent computer forensics lab. So why not distribute the cost of building a lab to all the guys who stare at the flickering screens all day?
Yes, I am against it due to privacy concerns. But in my head that justification makes sense.
The game.
Texas computer users thrilled by new law
A new Texas law that requires PC repairmen to hold a PI license has computer users giggling in glee. One user, Guy Pern told PCMag, "finally, I don't have to worry about those blundering fools deleting the thousands of photos of my children when they format my computer to reinstall Windows XP."
FBI agent Brute Farce was disappointed though. After arresting Guy Pern he commented to a PCMag reporter, "I guess it makes our job easier because we can just arrest these pervs when they pick up their computers. But I kinda miss the days of breaking down theirs doors and watching them masturbate in their computer chairs."
Not to mention that there is little to no money doing computer repair these days. With computers so cheap these days, it does not make sense to spend more than a few bucks on repair. But that would mean that the repairman won't make much bucks either.
Some years back I had taken my CD player into a repair shop for repairs. There it sat forever. Several months later I went there to ask for it back.
When I got it home, I took it apart (it still did not work) and noted that half the parts had be gutted out.
I'll do my own frelling repairs if I want to bother with doing them at all. Usually, I'll just throw the thing out and buy something new. In the case of computers, I'll just gut them myself rather than leaving it around for the repairman to do the same.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
The people you were pulling over wouldn't be a consenting party. If they are a consenting party, then there is no problem, situations like this already exist, e.g. a security guard on private property.
It's about fucking time you had to be licensed to be a PC technician. I'm tired of newbie douchebags doing a shitty job of how I earn a living and not charging enough for it. I can't wait for the rest of the states to follow suit.
Guess i better get new business cards printed. Not going to become a PI any time soon, so i'll have to find a new side job.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Not sure I'm able to make call here. It does sound like Ron Paul needs to go home and get his own house in order. Blah, orwell, blah Che, blah federalization. Stop breeding. Too many monkeys means nothing worth observing.
What's so bad about this. I thought "they" require a biology degree to mow someone's lawn. So what's the diff?
It's not legal to shoot people that are running away except under very specific circumstances. In most cases you'd have to be law enforcement to get away with it.
Legally you can only shoot and kill somebody in the prevention of a forcible felony. These change somewhat depending upon where you are, but attempted murder is always included. Felonious assault and rape may also be depending upon jurisdiction.
But once the crime itself has occurred and the individual is fleeing, you're no longer acting in self defense and as such can be legally charged in most jurisdictions.
So no, it is not a legal action and it is definitely something which can result in prison time.
Shoot them twice. In the back of the head. On sight.
End of burglaries in that county for a while.
How about requiring a license to *use* a computer? There are a lot of people that buy a computer yet know next to nothing about them.
Do they investigate systems from out of state? If anyone has sent in Apple laptop in for AppleCare service they send it a repair depot in Houston, TX or Memphis, TN so what if someone in New York sent in a Apple laptop to the Houston, TX depot what will happen?
Similar to Dell which has an repair depot in Texas also.
A bunch of interesting and scary questions for those who send equipment across state lines for repair.
And I always thought users should be licensed. Silly me.
I read the law. Well, skimmed it. Either the legislators were really smart or really stupid. "Security industry" is listed there. If computer security is part of the security industry, then a lot of people in TX need PI licenses. I know McAffe had an office there (in North Dallas, and they use the word "security" all the time. Anyone installing an anti-spyware program or virus scanner could fall under this as well. But it hasn't been enforced. What has been told to the computer repair shops is that if they "perform and investigation" they need PI licenses. That hasn't been defined by anyone. Perhaps that means that if you look for spyware, you are performing and investigation. It certainly should include if a husband drops off a computer and tells them to find out what his wife had been doing. Probably covers looking at email headers to determine where a specific email came from. The law is long, hard to read (it isn't a law, but an amendment to one, broken up in chunks and missing all peices not amended, making it pretty much unreadable, and I didn't bother to look for an updated version of the law in its entirety). But also not mentioned, if you help your neighbor set up his X-10 system, both of you committed a crime.
From what I can tell, the lawsuit is preemptive. No one has been charged. It was intended to be enforced against repair shops that do actual investigations that a PI would be doing if it wasn't on a computer (tracking usage, seeing what people were up to). However, the law was vague enough in some aspects that it could cover much more than was apparently intended, and the lawsuit is to determine what is and is not allowed under the law, and overturn any parts that are onerous enough to violate the state or US constitutions. The law did not say "all repair shops must have PI licenses." The people enforcing the law didn't say that either. However, if they are in the "security industry" or if they perform an "investigation" (and I couldn't find specific definitions of those) then they would need to be licensed.
Learn to love Alaska
I've noticed that many people who preach a lot about liberty, gun rights, due process, the rule of law and the government having a monopoly on force are curiously quick to defend the use of lethal force in defense of properties (typically valuable enough to already be insured) that the self-appointed defender may not even own. The not-too-subtle romanticisation of having a free pass to shoot someone is unnerving. I think people should be able to own guns, but I also think you've got some serious self-examination to do if you believe it's moral to execute people because they have stolen something or aren't documented as citizens.
Why did he point a gun at them in the first place? The dispatcher told him not to and to wait for the police. In Oregon he would of got manslaughter and he would of deserved it. If I was the homeowner he "protected" I would sue him civilly. Thinking you are a good man because you resort to violence when confronted with property theft is anachronistic in most of the civilized world. Texas is a joke.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
This can shut down many stores and IT workers.
Will In side IT works need this as well?
What about Support Vendors, consultants, contractors, contracting IT firms, contractors on contractor to hire, temps, interns, and others.
The big box stores like best buy are unlike to be able to keep up with this may need to shut down there geek squad. What about cable techs who set up cable internet for people?
It's also a bad idea to go out and try to stop a bulgary when the police dispatcher specifically tells you not to as there are police on the scene. I would have voted to prosecute.
Smoke another one or three.
Seriously, there ARE some good lessons to take from Orwell and the example of Che. Orwell was a great writer, who accuately predicted the sheer opressiveness of too much power in too many hands. And Che... that fuck got what he deserved. Shot down by an enlisted man without unecessary ceremony.
I don't completely agree with Paul on every issue, and strongly disagree with him on some.
Actually, I wish he would come home to Pittsburgh and get this place in order. It's become a whacked-out leftist island in the middle of a sea of reality.
Someone will get a lawyer to analyze the law and work around it. For example, they might start using contracts where the customer "sells" the PC to the shop, with the provision that the shop will sell it back to the customer after the repair is complete.
Sherlock Holmes is my hero. This is great! Now I can cite repairing PCs as prior experience when I try to become a detective.
(For some reason, "I read every Hardy Boy's book" doesn't go over as well...)
In the new world every new born should become automatically a private investigator, a private prosecutor, a private executor to safeguard the rights of individuals in the name of the state for the betterment of mankind, the universe and possibly God. Regardless whatever else silly things they decide to do with their life's.
This makes vigilante best buy asshats, and the practice of rooting through your hard drive illegal and subject to fines.
If they are payed to install x, or run software y, and they do anything else, you have a recourse.
If they want to sideline as superheros, scouring hard drives and calling the police with hot tips, they need a PI license, because they are privately investigating you.
Now you know who the self righteous assclowns are, so you can not take your PC there for service.
Geek Squad has no more right to root through my personal files than the plumber has to look through my file cabinet.
I'd get a PI license before all the existing PIs are full on apprentices. Think about it, along with the rare MIS grad who decided chasing cheating spouses beat tech, you'd be one of the few legal IT investigator in the state. You could make a killing doing a job that boils down to looking at porn and running virus scans.
Despite her gratuitous use of the word "shit", she knows wtf she's talking about.
IANAL, but by requiring an Investigator's license, doesn't this effectively make a PC repair tech a member of the Criminal Justice system in some small way? As I understand it, this could enable said system at the state, if not the federal level, to command these folks to participate...against their will, incidentally...in affairs of "vital security interest". (BTW, the same set of rules that allow a member of the health-care industries to likewise be commandeered) So, you have an entire subset of folks who can be commanded to put themselves in harm's way, and all for no more compensation than minimum wage and an admonishment to "do one's patriotic duty". ...I sense a growth industry in Jack-boot manufacture being born.
I'm sorry, but that's a crap argument. In all of those cases, the licensing requirements are related to the actual job. In this case? Completely unrelated.
And Louisiana law is fairly different from Texas law. Louisiana is sort of the red haired bastard stepchild when it comes to the law because of the heavy French influence.
You mean like it is crap to condemn Louisiana's legal system and laws because they are based on the the traditions of Roman law and the Napoleonic Code rather than the Anglo Saxon legal tradition? You do realize that in the same breath you have condemned the legal systems a large portion of humanity as 'crap' since much of it is heavily influenced either by the Napoleonic code civil, Roman law or both. The Anglo Saxon legal tradition has it's own set of problems and is in no way vastly superior.
As the GP notes, they were not running "away." They were running (obliquely) towards.
It all goes back to Grover. "I'm near! I'm far!"
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Did someone call for........Inspector Gadget? Badabum-tish!
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Or to put it another way, see the metaphor used by Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin.
I think the trend to move responsibility into the hands of licensors has rational limits. I believe it is the purpose of satire to determine what those limits are.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Maybe not, but "MediaSentry" — and others trying to track down theft of purely intellectual property — certainly do, even if they don't set foot to Texas during their investigations. Much to Slashdot's approval...
Yes, they do investigations. No, they are not "shady" (armed) individuals lurking in the dark valleys...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
And if the patients know this, what exactly is wrong with it?
In Africa, witch doctors are telling people that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.
You can't take the sky from me...
Folks, calm down. The fault here seems to lie with the person who wrote the newspaper article. I read the Texas law in question and I don't see a problem.
Here's the important passage:
----
INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts
as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an
individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
----
I don't see how the applies to computer repair shops.
I searched the entire text and found only two instances of the word "repair", both in reference to the repair of "security devices" and the word "computer" is only used once in the entire document (in the last sentence of the passage above.)
The "PC Magazine" story cites as it's source a "Dallas-Ft. Worth CW Affiliate." That affiliate published a story penned by:
"Pelpina Trip, KDAF33 News at Nine Intern"
It looks like you have all been riled up into a foamy froth by AN INTERN AT A LOCAL TV NEWS OUTFIT.
Do you feel foolish yet?
Anyone that sends their computer to be fixed by someone else shouldn't expect any more privacy than a homeowner who hires someone to fix something around the house and than complains that they should not of noticed the DVDs or magazines laying around the house with naked children on them. This guy doesn't sound like he is using anything to break the encryption and reading the website he linked gives no indication he would have technology that advanced unless he worked for the company mentioned. If you have child porn in plain sight ( i.e. unencrypted ) you should have no right to complain when the techs turn you in.
Read your company policies about what they can do to your computer to find things you hide on it. You might be surprised.
Like all state licensing, the purpose of this measure is to interfere with the market for the benefit of the businesses who are greasing the legislators in question. It has fuck-all to do with quality control or public safety.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You know the guy was way out of line gunning the other fellows down. The 911 operator repeatedly told the man not to go out there, and not to shoot them, and the guy was very intent on doing just that. I find it highly disturbing that anyone cheered for this man. That being said there's an equally valid viewpoint that you don't break in to other peoples houses. As horrifying as it is, and perhaps because of that, people will know about it.
I'm glad I live in Texas, not Oregon, where a bunch of bed-wetters will send a man to jail for defending his home.
This new law could force ISPs to cooperate with law enforcement without warrants, is this just another attempt to 'slip around the counter' to get at the publics private information?
Looking the other way at this, does this also make PI's pc repairmen? If so does it also mean that police have the same rights as PI's to go into a business where a person's computer is being repaired and retrieve data for a 'client' (say the government?}
Interesting law, hopefully with your new government election, the US will get some sensible people in office.
-M
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
Not crazy about that phrase. Unless you've encrypted something and they crack it, what exactly is the social contract about what's "public" when you hand your computer over to a tech? Isn't really like there is a defined lawyer/client, doctor/patient precedent, is there?
Maybe there should be. But I doubt the answer is having every PC tech majoring in criminal justice.
Yeah, everyone knows it's open season on ILLEGAL ALIENS!!1 How does that make any difference to the case?
Regardless, I don't think most people would have begrudged the guy for shooting them if he caught them in the act in his own house, or if they had just assaulted someone or something. But he shot them in the back while they were running away from the scene of a non-violent crime. It's really hard to justify that, especially when he had like 8 minutes to think about it while a voice of reason was explicitly telling him not to get involved.
The Islamic law you all say is SO awful provides the penalty of cutting off someone's hand if they steal. HERE, most of you seem to believe that they should be SHOT IN THE BACK AND KILLED! Who's worse? Islam or Texas?
I know this is /. and reading the _source_ is bad form, but if you READ THE FUCKING LAW, the coverage is pretty clear.
If a computer repair technician without a government-issued private investigator's license takes any actions that the government deems to be an "investigation," they may be...
This is 100% pure, unfounded speculation.
Again, read the GD law they link to. It specifically mentions data that is not publicly available, for example, not the data YOU FUCKING HAND OVER TO YOUR REPAIR TECH. It also mentions exactly what you have to be doing for it to apply to you. READ IT, you piece of shit, and pass it on to others in this retarded forum. God, I'm fucking sick of assholes that don't verify the source of obviously sensationalist headlines. You want to debate the meaning of the law here, FUCKING DANDY, but argue about the interpretation of PCMAG's interpretation of the law? STFU, and GO HOME! +5 insightful, GD moderators, WAKE THE FUCK UP.
I don't really understand why they want this. For one thing, if you require technicians to be PI's they are more likely to go snooping around in someone's computer in the first place. So, this thing is a double edge sword. I don't trust the government with security related legislation anyway. And esp nowadays with all the ridiculous security nonsense pervaded by the whitehouse and by congress (both parties it seems). Oh well, this is what you get from politicians it seems.
It wasn't his home. Vigilante justice as a solution to crime is the non-thinking mans solution. Incarceration is only a step above and it aint' working out too well for you folks. It seems like Texas simply will not accept treatment as a solution and prefers to shoots guns, lock up black people and execute innocent people. I am glad I live in a state that does not spend 100's of millions of dollars on a death penalty system that seems to be more about vengeance than justice.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
No mod points, or I would do it myself
Its like asking McDonalds workers to be required to graduate from Highschool. Sure it can be done, but its such a major hurdle in view of the skills required to fill the position *flip burger*. Besides, in a free market if you are worried about the qualifications of a repair shot, chances are good so is everyone else getting serviced there. Repair shops that can't actually repair stuff don't stay in business. So a free market regulates the skill level required to give repairs.
Memorizing the digits of transcendental numbers simply doesn't apply to the repair of elecronics or microelectronics. Ohhhhh, THAT sort of PI....!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The article sections you quote don't provide for the hypothetical you propose.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I observed some of the online discussion in the LE and forensics community of this when it was just a bill. I got the impression that it can help in some ways. Imagine this scenario: Divorce gets nasty, so wife nabs hubby's computer and takes it to someone for analysis. Then they go to court. Hubby says "That's not my porn/affair/evidence of financial misdeeds/whatever. The person who extracted the info is not trustworthy and it's all planted evidence." Wife says "Yes, they are trustworthy and here's why." Now the judge is stuck not just deciding if the evidence bears on the case but if the evidence is even real.
LEOs probably don't care much about that scenario. The problem, however, is when that scenario turns up evidence of something seriously illegal. Who's to say the child porn found on the machine was put there by who? The chain of evidence is seriously screwed up. If the techs doing the investigating were licensed, we could expect they would have a reasonable appreciation of the need to stop, preserve, and call law enforcement, thus not endangering prosecution.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that scenario if I hadn't encountered it myself. Many years ago I had a friend ask me to investigate what was on a computer belonging to her son. I found that he and his teenage friends were making and trading porn of themselves - alone, in couples, and in groups. These were just high school kids acting stupid; the revelation of this information would have unnecessarily ruined lives. I told the mom that the machine was so virus-infested it needed to be wiped. I saved his homework folder, did a DOD-spec wipe of the drive, reinstalled Windows, and told her I couldn't do her any more favors regarding her son's computer. This was years ago; everyone involved then is now an adult. No evidence has existed for years. (And if any LE reading this is interested at this late date, be advised that this was just a fictional story concocted to illustrate a point.)
Now, the LEO perspective on that incident would be different. If I had been a licensed PI, I would have been trained to preserve the evidence or at least stop and not screw it up. I would have been obligated to report it to LE. From the state's perspective, that would have been the right thing to do. This new law will force that to happen in some cases. Frankly, I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Run of the mill repair shops can probably avoid hassles by just having their customers sign an agreement that no work being done is investigatory in nature or will be used in any official venue, that any information provided is intended for maintenance purposes only. Then if the person with the computer wants to use the information in court, they are the ones who are responsible for it not being admissible because they knew they were getting it from a source that couldn't bring it to court.
Computer investigators with contracts to divorce lawyers can expect a windfall. "No, ma'am, you can't take the computer to your friend to see if there's any evidence on it. You'll have to use my licensed investigator; state law says you have to if we're going to be able to take the findings to court. Of course, he's pretty expensive but we'll just squeeze your soon-to-be-ex for a few more thousands to pay for it."
Sounds like they're not banning people from repairing computers, but, they are banning anything even vaguely relating to computer search and forensics.
Where this will make a difference is it'll stop people from reporting the accidental finding of evidence of child pornography, terrorism, fraud and other crimes. Even if this information was found in the normal course of fixing the computer, this evidence would be "illegal" to have been found by anyone other than a registered PI -- and anyone reporting it would be de-facto "admitting" they'd broken the law by "conducting a search".
It's all rather insidious the way corrupt government creates corrupt laws to further aid corruption. All those years of the Bush Dynasty in Texas will do that, I guess.
Wouldn't want anyone engaging in mutually voluntary trade without the government knowing about it.
Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
I would like to see a PC Repair licensing procedure that provides for the confidentiality of information, not the disclosure of information.
Technician: No, you being a moron and not backing up important work caused the loss
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
E-Discovery . . . On 12-1-2006 The Federal Court enacted new rules of procedure which not only recognize and legitimize electronically stored information as being equally as "discoverable" as information contained in all other traditional forms of communications, for all cases heard in the Federal courts, but it also placed requirements on all parties to litigations in the Federal Courts to preserve and to produce as evidence when required, except in limited situations unless otherwise required by the Court, all relevant electronically stored information. This has included all metadata and even the information contained in RAM. So, considering the volatile nature of electronically stored information, a requirement for an investigator's license along with forensics expertise [ when conducting investigations and\or collecting the electronically stored information for possible presentation as evidence ] can only benefit all parties, the courts, and the taxpayers. Traditionally, for uniformity and recognition, the State courts have looked to the Federal Court for direction.
cjacobs001
So...ignoring the headline and considering the actual law - does this affect the folks doing RIAA's investigations? It sounds (from my uninformed point fo view) like it's written almost specifically for that sort of situation.
I don't see how this can apply to anyone doing non forensic computer repair. However, looking at section 1702.104 and the exemptions in section 1702.324 I can see a couple of interesting places this law could apply.
The obvious one, which is not a new idea, relates to companies like MediaDefender performing investigations on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA. They act like a private investigator but do not have a licence to do so (obtaining or furnishing information related to identity, habits, location, transactions, etc of a person with computer-based data not available to the public (subsections (a)(1)(B) and (b) )); MediaSentry role in RIAA lawsuit comes under scrutiny.
The non obvious one deals with anyone who works with clickstream data, e.g. NebuAd,Doubleclick, Google, etc. They all obtain information to do with a person and subsection (a)(1)(B) is a huge or statement. Since identity is one of these ors you could define a person using a unique identifier, only track habits, location, affiliations, or transactions, and still possibly be subject to this.
Is a unique identifier a person? It could be, AOL Proudly Releases Massive Amounts of Private Data
" AOL has released very private data about its users without their permission. While the AOL username has been changed to a random ID number, the abilitiy to analyze all searches by a single user will often lead people to easily determine who the user is, and what they are up to. The data includes personal names, addresses, social security numbers and everything else someone might type into a search box.
The most serious problem is the fact that many people often search on their own name, or those of their friends and family, to see what information is available about them on the net. Combine these ego searches with porn queries and you have a serious embarrassment. Combine them with "buy ecstasy" and you have evidence of a crime. Combine it with an address, social security number, etc., and you have an identity theft waiting to happen. The possibilities are endless. "
Something to think about... But then again, IANAL and not even an American so what would I know.
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY.
(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
I'm on the fence, I can understand how trivial and technical "repairing" computers can be, which explains how a 14 year old geek can typically fix a computer.
However, the notion that this person should be a PI sort of makes sense. I'm not aware of the responsibilities of a PI in Texas, but having a license which is intended to prove some reference and proof of training of person who will have access to your hard disk and the private information it contains doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
So, my plan is to instruct every babysitter in the fine art of forensic psychology. That way they can utilize their access to the children under their care and be able to tell when a child's been abused and report the parents to the proper authorities. Unlike busting people for having child porn (note: this is in no way an endorsement of child porn) this will actually directly prevent the harming of a child, and the training involved will improve the child care the babysitter provides.
It's a win-win. Unlike forcing pc repair people to become PIs which will result in more arrests and do almost zippy-do-da for the children who have been harmed.
I'm circulating a petition. I'm hopeful.
Texas law is the worst in the nation. A man who kills two escaping burglars (who didn't even rob his house, it was his neighbor's stuff being taken) in cold blood by shooting them in the back gets off scot free (even after telling the police dispatcher he was going to kill them, and being ordered to stay inside), patent trolls rule the courts (most of these companies file suit solely in Texas because it's so friendly to them), and now you can't even fix a computer without yet another layer of certification, this time for a completely unrelated subject. Texas needs to stop being so backwards and making our whole country look bad. Texas: You're the reason I can't talk to a European without some disparaging comment being made about my nationality. Stop it, you bastards.
As a PC Tech that is independent, it is ironic that I have thought about getting a PI License. It is actually quite compatible with what I do already.
I understand treatment as an alternative to a crime of addiction. What treatment is available for thieving immigrants? Seriously, WTF were you thinking when you wrote that? How is vigilante justice "non-thinking"? Nobody said it was rocket science, but do you know what "non-thinking" is? We know, from your post, that you practice non-thinking but can you define it? Also, it is not a crime to black in Texas. Why would make such a racist statement? You admit to not live in that state, yet you make these claims without any relevant links.
same training also gives the person knowledge on how to dodge the law if s/he intends malicious stuff. or frame you for something. or be a general nuisance.
Read radical news here
I am positive they worked a Best Buy, big box retail store exclusion. To say nothing of those huge Dell service depots that pepper the state.
even if distorted by an intern, it is still a law that might have come out of texas, even in its distorted form.
Read radical news here
I just spent 5 hrs and $6700 in the emergency room and I never met or spoke with any MD at all. They tell me there's a supervising MD there for all the PA's and RN's but I have to take that on faith.
So, yeah, I just had all sorts of expensive, potentially dangerous and invasive procedures, a few IV's and drugs administered without, as far as I know any 'licensed medical doctor' present.
Drug related burglaries are the most common and easiest to solve. Do you think people steal because it is in their nature? People steal most often to feed themselves be it drugs or bread. The solution was in the link.
Any system of belief that requires one to presume they are qualified to be "judge, jury and executioner" in any situation besides a well-founded belief that one's life or person is in danger cannot at the same time entertain thought that could be considered civilized let alone cogent.
1 in 3 blacks in Texas are in the criminal justice system and incarcerated 7 times more often than whites and more than twice as much for the same crime. I did not know I was required to post links to information that should be common knowledge to anyone who has read a newspaper about the death penalty case in the supreme court in the last year or so.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Technology has always been the place where I could be one step ahead of the system, but the requirements for a PI license are BS.
Tech support is one of the few places not controlled by a government force, but I suppose if this follows through it won't be that way for much longer.
Whoever tagged this bigbrother hit the nail on the head.
That's what the story by a Dallas channel 33, News at Nine Intern says, but that's not what the law says.
IANAL, but reading the law, I see that it is directed at Computer Security and Computer Forensics professionals, not the type of stuff the Geek Squad does. From the law: "review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data" and "including forensic analysis, burglar alarm system engineering, and necessary data collection." It is about gathering evidence for criminal prosecution.
The certification of computing professionals is not a new idea. There is already an organization that does it. The Institute for the Certification of Computer Professionals http://www.iccp.org/ has been doing it for decades. This certification was recomended by the DPMA (Data Processors Management Association) back in the 70's. The DPMA is now known as the Association of Information Technology Professionals http://www.aitp.org/.
Sounds like the rednecks are trying to keep out those devilish tools that allow heathens to access "information" that "disproves" Creationism...
Dammit being a robber should be dangerous. A year ago I finally moved out of the barrio, and now that I live in less of a dump I keep getting my crap robbed. Why should someone risk their life on a crab boat in the Bering sea for 10 to 50 thousand dollars when they can just beat the window in on my car and steal 4 grand worth of tools in less than 10 minutes. This may sound callous, but dammit robbing peoples stuff should be more dangerous than ice road trucking, working on an oil platform, or fishing for crab. It's definitely a lot easier.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dell must have been doing some good lobbying down there. Computer broken? It's now cheaper to just buy a new one!
Don't complain, don't lobby to change anything. Every shop and tech in the state simply stops working and tells their clients, bosses, etc. that it seems we're not allowed to do anything until we get this PI license. We should be back to work in about 3 years. Somehow, I doubt this law will last more than a couple of days. I suspect Texans are as addicted to their CPUs as the rest of us. Especially the lawmakers.
Texas has enough dicks already without this legislation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have fun watching your "computer boxes" turn into unusable scrap-iron, you pack of cowlickers...
I read through the primary source document listed and did not see "computer technician" specifically listed in the language. I just cruised over it and searched for "computer" and "technician" but it only referred to persons who install security equipment such as alarms and surveillance devices.
Can somebody with better eyes point out the article or section that supports the blogger's statement?
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Am I the only one who thought of the movie "Brazil" when I read this?
"Harry Tuttle: Listen, this old system of yours could be on fire and I couldn't even turn on the kitchen tap without filling out a 27b/6... Bloody paperwork. "
...must be at an all time low. Did anyone actually read the law before posting your novels about big brother and to-hell-with-the-government rants? It doesn't even apply to "pc repair" shops. As a matter a fact, the only mention of repair is found in the section that EXCLUDES certain services, and even that doesn't involve PC repair. The law requires persons or entities whose services involve, basically, spying on people (e.g., PIs) or protecting them from bodily harm (e.g., body guards) to have a "security service contractor" license. Way to blindly follow the herd, sheep.
The liberal mindset is that you are not allowed to choose
That's not a liberal mindset. The original liberalism, Classical Liberalism which stems from The Age Of Enlightenment and The Age of Reason, was all about liberty and small government. Among the USA's Founding Fathers who were Liberals were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine. The father of Capitalism Adam Smith was a Liberal. As used today "liberal" and "liberalism" has been twisted to mean something a lot different than it did.
Then again other words have had the same thing done to them, like "hack" and "hacker". Whereas a hack used to mean something creative and a hacker was someone who hacked, and writers were hacks too, today they are used for crimes and criminals. As used with computers a hacker follows the Hacker ethic.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So licensing is not totally unreasonable in the case of being a doctor. Although, you might draw the conclusion that the computer technician is healing your computer, no one's life is at stake.(except, of course, in a few extreme and rare cases)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Stumbling across porn, while doing repair is not probable cause, not supported by oath or affirmation, etc...
Forcing repair tech to be agents of the government
pretty much violates the idea of people being secure in their own homes and papers, effects etc.
The net result of this law is that computer techs will stop performing this task in Texas. This will leave the citizenry with no computer techs and overall they will become a more backward state then they already are. The citizens will have to go to the big corporate stores for computer techs who will try to sell them another computer rather then repair it.
Most likely big business is behind this dumb law.
Someone like circuit city teaming up with law enforcement.
Wait.
Isn't a group like Perverted Justice regularly breaking the law in Texas?
They have a website where they do a bunch of stuff, like digging up addresses and phone numbers of "pedophile activists". They have big teams of people scouring the Internet for everything they've ever posted and doing the "infosearch" stuff to get their Date of Birth and even like eye color.
They seem to brag about dropping by their house and posting fliers in their neighborhoods about their online activities, etc.
How is that not "private investigation"? And why aren't they subject to this law? Or maybe the better question is, should we care? I seem to think laws pretty useless and wrong when they are selectively enforced based on who you "like better".
I'm all about choice, I think everyone should make their own choices and should be free to make their own mistakes, that why I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. I also am a proponent of relaxing drug laws, but I don't advocate drug use, I rarely even take aspirin. I think that conservatives are just as likely to disallow choice, even libertarians are guilty of it, but they would never admit it.
Same here, and I am a Libertarian.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think it makes sense for skills to be licensed in areas where life and limb are potentially at risk.
So you want to license parents then?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts
as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or
furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a
state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of
lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire,
libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board,
officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an
individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice
purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts
employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the
use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or
furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished
through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the
content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
***
So, if you READ it, you'll see that it will require a PI license if your company engages in computer forensic activities. By extension, if you a computer tech attempts to turn in a customer for having incriminating data on their computer, the customer could probably sue and the tech could probably face whatever penalties for investigating without a license.
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
This is all a bunch of BS. The requirement is Section 1702.104 (b) as I read it. It only pertains to individuals who do analysis on computers for legal proceedings, investigations or tracking/data gathering, see first sentence of the section "For purposes of Subsection (a)(1)...." Is it a good idea for techies who work for or provide services for legal proceedings to have some sort of training requirements? I think so. I had a client a few years ago I was defending on drug distribution charges. Part of the evidence was his data on his laptop. The techie doing the investigation on the drive was clueless as to chain of custody requirements. Needless to say, because of this, the data was not allowed in as evidence. I'm sure he made a mental note to himself after I finished with him to never leave a computer that is considered evidence in a legal matter, setting on a workbench in a open office, and out of his sight for several hours at a time.
Think about what information you keep in your computer. It has your email, your bank account passwords, pictures of your naked wife, your donkey porn, etc.
In short, it's very likely that there's a large amount of information that's very sensitive and unique to you. Some of this information is likely to be at least somewhat illegal.
If you are repairing a computer and happen to notice a file named "Extorting_city_councilmember.doc" or "Hot_12_YearOld_does_dildoes.jpg", are you required to report them? By saving the file on behalf of the user, are you committing a crime yourself?
There are many statutes regarding the aiding and abetting of a crime that apply to everyone except for your attorney, and I think that similar protections should apply to computer servicemen due to the above mentioned issues.
Your computer weenie should actually have your best interests at heart, just like your attorney. I think it's a question of time, as computer discovery becomes more and more of an issue, and as computers encompass more and more of what could be realistically called your own thought before this becomes inevitable.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The point is that if a PC repair person does any form of "investigation" on a computer, then they must be PI license. Technically, if you don't do any investigation at all, you don't need a PI license.
TFA says nothing about only requiring repair shops who do investigations to be licensed. It says anything the "government deems to be an 'investigation,'" must have the PI license. If a computer is showing problems then the repair person has to investigate, another word for diagnose or troubleshoot, why. Individuals too can be charged with a crime: "But the repair shops are not the only ones at risk. The law also criminalizes consumers who knowingly use an unlicensed company to perform any repair that constitutes an investigation in the eyes of the government."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And there you have it - big guys crushing little guys. Welcome to America. Don't dream of building a small business, being your own boss, and having some sort of independence. Oh hellz no! Work for the man, or don't work at all.
Didn't we have a revolution a couple hundred years back over stuff like this? Might be time for a new one soon... the old one is broken.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Trickle down effect of a Bush neocon government. How will this "trickle down" to the rest of the industry and states? This law sounds seriously messed up if allowed to stand.
A PI should have no business on my machine -- in fact, that'd be a good reason *not* to go to a licensed repair shop -- because they will likely be required to search it -- if not already, in the near future.
For people who have had 'depot' repair warranties -- you have to send the computer in to them to be
repaired. But possibly worse -- does this mean if a business (like Dell) is based in Texas, they need to require all computers that they repair to be searched as well?
Certainly, this will raise the cost of computer repairs so much as to make them near 'throw-aways' (like the cheap ones aren't already?).
A company like Dell, it seems would have to relocate its repair business outside of the state if they want to remain competitive.
If you live in Texas, will it become illegal to service your own computer -- will you need a PI license to buy spare computer parts? How about the legality of shipping your computer out-of-state for repair -- is that, or will that also be illegal? Perhaps they'll have "border" searches at airports and highways to check contents of all laptops and computers entering the state?
This is all the neocons' fantasy movement toward a socialist police state. It figures it would start in Bush's home state. That state is probably the strongest base of neocons -- I wonder how long California will last, or if it can, against the Orange-County/SoCal neocons. Hopefully the their anti-gay-marriage thing will fail horribly and they'll pack up and all move to Texas...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Which is better? In my opinion a moral society in which people can do what they want with their money is desirable to a morally corrupt society where everything goes as long as you're paying extortion money to the liberal government. But that's just my opinion.
But of course, it's a truism that morality is better than immorality. Nobody wants an immoral society. The point of disagreement comes when some people question whether what social conservatives call "immoral" really is immoral. Socially liberal people want less government control over personal behavior because they believe that much of the behavior social conservatives want to regulate is not wrong at all. Nobody (except a few fringe nihilists) really wants an anything-goes society. Even anarchists believe in a small set of rules (they just don't believe in rulers).
On the subject of liberals and conservatives both wanting to protect choice, though: as another poster has already commented, those who are called "liberal" today are not those who are properly called liberal; though neither are those who are called "conservative" today (though many of them are not far from those who are properly called "conservatives"). When these terms first came into use, the State controlled all economic activity and the Church controlled all social activity (though these powers often colluded and shared their respective control). Liberals were those who wanted to wrest such control out of those powerful hands and place it with each and every individual; conservatives were the ones who wanted to keep things the way they were.
Then at some point the powerful began to co-opt the now-dominant liberal economic ideology and exploit its weaknesses to their illiberal ends; and many of the less powerful, in return, put their faith in the State to fix this. As the powerful remained socially conservative and the less powerful remained socially liberal, it came to pass that those called "liberals" were in fact socially conservative (actually regressive, as the State-controlled economy had been dissolved by the earlier liberal movement); and those called "conservatives" were in fact, at least nominally, economically liberal.
But neither side is fully liberal or conservative these days (though the vested business interests on the conservative side, while nominally economically liberal, seem like they'd be quite happy with an illiberal economy so long as they get to be the new kings). About the only people close to true liberalism, as you noted, are those now called libertarians, though even they aren't quite as liberal as I'd like. Unfortunately we've got our share of true conservatives(*) around aplenty... fascists, corporatists and communists are all different faces of the same "we know what's best for you" ideology.
( * Technically speaking, anyone striving to preserve the status quo is a conservative, so if the status quo is liberal then conservatives would be liberals; but I'm using the term loosely in the sense equivalent to "illiberal" here, as it was used at the start of liberalism).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The law provides for fines of knowing use of someone who is not licensed.
But the law also is focused on those who call themselves "Security Services personnel" -- guards, those who do investigations (PI's).
I'm not sure how people are getting this applies to computer repairs....the security personnel must also be licensed to carry a gun....
This doesn't seem to be the run-of-the-mill computer repair situation. Maybe if you are investigating 'fraud' in a company...but, beyond that --
Someone want to 'enlighten' me how this applies to normal (i.e. not looking for forensic evidence of illegal activities) computer repair ops?
I'm thinking that Magnum is well qualified as a PC repairman then....
Thank you for spelling it out. Now I can take exception to it.
I have an issue with (a)(1)(C) which, incidentally, is included in section (a)(1). I work for a local computer repair shop. We once checked in a laptop from a shady fellow. It seemed to be a corporate laptop, and he was acting on edge. Since the circumstances of his request added to my suspicion, I did a little poking around in system data. I was able to prove that the laptop belonged to a University. I did not pry into documents, but I did examine data not normally "available to the public" on the system. Long story short, he had left his job there, and took the laptop with him. The local police here collected the unit (I presume the law was followed, I was not party to that).
Now had I been in Texas, under this new law, I could have said to myself: "That guy seems shady; oh well." Anything more would have been a violation of law. My boss certainly wouldn't have paid a PI to investigate. He was willing to let me spend a little time on it, but that was pushing it. If I hadn't, it probably would have come to nothing. BUT, it also could have resulted in at least one violation of law (probably several, due to circumstances).
This is my reading of the situation, anyway. IANAL
Amen. That and I wish we could get more real lawyers here. I wish we could get the lawyers who are here to speak up more often.
(I really don't mind the "I'm not your lawyer and this isn't advice" spiel.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"it gives said party with the gun grounds to be legitimately afraid for their life.."
I love America!
It's also OK to shoot people knocking on your door to death, if they happen to be Japanese...
What intrigues me is that the poster seems to see nothing wrong with this attitude. It's almost like he thinks he is living in a lawless frontier land 200 years ago.....
Thinking you are a good man because you resort to violence when confronted with property theft is anachronistic in most of the civilized world
So, we should agree with you because everyone else in the "civilized" world does. Please. How ethnocentric and quaintly moralist.
I dunno what PC Mag is smoking, but computer repair is specifically excluded from the new requirement. From the text of 80(R)HB 2833:
(b) This chapter does not apply to:
* * *
(12) a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer:
(A) installs, changes, or repairs a mechanical security device;
(B) repairs an electronic security device;
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
I prefer my Popperian cosmology which recognizes that there are physical, subjective and objective worlds and that objective ideas like human rights may indeed triumph over your radical relativism by virtue of your obscurantism. It is deceitful to say we cannot know the moral implications of an act because we lack the nebulous qualities no one but a relativist cares to define of persistent geospatial this and/or cultural presence that. We have not even begun to explore the full implications of recognizing that we as a species are inborn with such rights do not attempt to subvert them through your own ignorance.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Requiring a PI license for IT repairs? Where's the connection? Do we require mechanics to have a pharmacy license?
The only logic reason is to abuse IT repairs to sniff through private files of citizens. And to make such findings more in court, you need people who know how to gain evidence illegally and still retaining its value in court.
Anything else makes simply no sense.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1) State requires all PC repair technicians to be PIs
2) State "hires" all PIs as investigators for the State by Mandate
3) All PIs mandated to image any hard drive they come across and give the image to the government
4) Government signs up as a participating state in the FBI Citizen Surveillance Program
5) Texas turns over all Hard Disk images to the FBI in exchange for certain monetary concessions from the Federal Gov't
www.truecrypt.org
It's perfectly capable of stepping on it's _own_ (tiny flaccid) dick, thank you.
If you read them as an engineer, they do.
If you care to take off your engineer hat and put on your barrister's wig and explain how the legal terms don't mean what they seem to mean, I'd sure appreciate it.
a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer
So the Geek Squad type people who come and fix your computer for a fee are still on the hook.
You are not inborn with rights in the sense that God or the Universe granted them to you; the social contracts that uphold your entire society (the ones you defend so venomously) granted them to you. "My moral code" (the code in question here regarding "inborn rights") is a philosophical code word for "the system of social contracts that I prefer to live under," and nothing more. In short, people uphold the contracts they choose to merely because they themselves want the protection that those contracts afford (or perhaps feel they are capable of survival in a lawless land, if they uphold few or none). Laws against murder and "honor" killings and rape and slave trade and female genital mutilation are common because, well, people don't like to be killed, raped, sold, or forcibly mutilated. Personally, I think that these practices are wasteful and I don't support them. Frankly, you are missing the point in saying that I was even trying to say that you "cannot know the moral implications of an act." The point is that the universe is inherently amoral. You are just a collection of molecules and you happen to arbitrarily value your own life and the lives of other molecule collections like you more than anything else in the universe. You support the notion of inborn rights because you enjoy having rights. You are probably naturally empathetic to other members of your species because empathy fosters cooperation and cooperation is a more effective survival strategy than squabbling constantly.
Frankly, I would not mind living in a society with more weapons and more freedom to use those weapons on undeclared trespassers. Why? Because I am not in the business of trespassing and I want to be able to defend myself. Comparing the desire to live under a social contract of self-defense to the desire to break the social contracts against murder and rape and slave trade is an illogical and poorly considered comparison, made in your vain and red-faced attempt to show how "uncivilized" I am for calling you a moralist. Even a "relativist" is capable of realizing that certain social contracts are worth upholding, even if he himself is amoral (I'd describe myself personally as an agnostic nihilist).
In the universe that you and I live in, we are like tiny bugs flying around on a rock in the middle of a giant vacuum that we know nothing about. Compared to earth's history and the cosmos our lives are very short. We don't know how we got here, we don't know where we're going, we don't even know what happens when we die, and for all we know we are the only people in the whole wide universe who actually care about the future of the "human race" at all. That is the "objective" reality; the notion of inborn rights exists solely within the brains of some humans (a minority of them, I would imagine, considering how many eat chicken and beef). It is not the creed of the universe and I will not adopt your "morals" word-for-word as though they were spewed from the mouth of an infallible deity without critically evaluating them first. I, unlike most, am honest with myself about how little I really know about "objective" reality.
You won't sway a nihilist to believe that a philosophy is "ineffective" by demonstrating that it causes suffering. He would reply that your statements themselves belied a selfish set of presupposed, invented human principles about the importance of the human race, it's survival, the elimination of all suffering from the world, and "inborn rights". He would reply that he doesn't really care what effects it has on every being in the entire universe, but rather what effects it would have on him, or perhaps to the future of the race as a whole (regardless of whether or not some "eggs are cracked" in the execution of the philosophy). He would reply that we are the children of nature and in nature the coyote does not believe that the rabbit has "inborn rights." He does what he can to survive without remorse.
In short -- I just don't give a fuck! But that doesn't mean I'll cut off my daughter
This law should and I would assume will be thrown out on at least 3 grounds:
1. Features extreme requirement of a 4-yr. degree rather than a simple licensing test when heretofore no license or degree of any kind was required to perform this work.
2. Degree requirement is generally unrelated to the day-to-day work as a PC technician.
3. Language of the licensing law is too vague, stipulating that any "investigative" work on a PC would be covered by this requirement. Technically, any type of computer work is "investigative" by nature, making it a crime for anyone to open a PC, troubleshoot anything (whether hardware or software) or replace any parts on a PC.
4. Major privacy concerns. What authority does the Private Eye/PC-fixer have to go through personal content of a hard drive without express consent from the customer? As it is today, the PC repair technician rarely checks out (sniffs through) actual data contained on a computer, unless specifically instructed to do so by the customer himself or herself. This new law opens up a pandora's box of personal privacy issues, consent issues, "obtainment of incriminating evidence without warrant issues," etc.
If PC repair must require a criminal justice degree because of the (remote) possibility that criminal material could be contained on said computers, then one could argue that consequently many other professions should require the same degree. A trained law enforcement official would undoubtedly be better at spotting "criminal or terrorist activity" text messages on cell phones, so the entire cell phone industry should require criminal justice degrees. Librarians and book store clerks should be replaced by criminal justice degree holders, since they are better at noticing patterns in people's reading materials that could lead to the discovery of potential Unabombers, McVeigh's or Middle Eastern terrorists. The clerks working in the photo lab at Walgreens or CVS must be replaced by a criminal justice degree holder, since they can best do the "investigative" work required to discertain if some photos cross certain criminal thresholds. On and on the list goes.
If lawmakers don't change the language of this law to specify with much more detail what "investigative" work is meant exactly, the law should be thrown out with high arc. Overzealous lawmakers sniffing too much of that 'homeland security' glue are making this a seemingly easy law to revoke/reverse, unless they come to their senses beforehand and relegate this law into the niche corner where it belongs. What should eventually remain of this law would cover highly data-sensitive municipal and state government computers, as it should have been in the first place.
It was a wet and smoky night, the kind of night that made my teeth itch. I tipped back my fedora as I polished off that last bottle of Crown Royal that had been mocking me from the bottom desk drawer all day, when Gwendolyn Smalls sashayed through my door, dragging her HP Presario - with a look that would make a small baby cry...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I have a friend in my CS classes who works as a computer repair tech for Circuit City. While in the process of cleaning an infected computer he stumbled across a stash of child porn while searching down viruses. He didn't open the pictures, but it had thumbnail images so it was kind of hard to miss. They went to trial and the guy pled guilty but not as much because of my friend finding the stuff, but they raided his house and found tons of other things as well. Chances are if it was only on his computer, they guy could have potentially gotten the entire case thrown out. There is fine print in the document you sign when you drop your computer off for repairs that covers Circuit City's ass. Basically, it says that they will not search your computer specifically looking for anything illegal, BUT if they find something illegal while completing their task they will report it.
You don't understand the shoot-to-defend mentality. It's not about the stolen something. If someone breaks into my house after my computer, they aren't just stealing a nameless piece of equipment - They're stealing the many months of work I had to do to save up enough money to buy it. Unlike some of you out there who have parents that pay for whatever you may want, I have to work for what I want. If my computer gets stolen I will have to work for many months to get enough money to replace it. Nobody is going to replace it for me. I'm not shooting to defend some nameless plastic box. I'm shooting to defend my right to enjoy the results of my work.
In any event, I should have the right to be at least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal here has a gun, I should have the right to a gun as well. (Currently the average criminal here does not have a gun, so I do not. However, crime has been increasing lately, so I may have to reconsider this.)
Really? PI license? Damn I'm gonna impress the ladies when I stuff all that in my pocket! That thing goes on forever I imagine! I need to stitch on more room to my pockets.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
The law in no place says anything about repair technicians being required to do this - the only inference you could give that would be specifically for searching data in the act of an investigation.
TFA is pure sensationalist bullshit.
Up to a year in jail and $4,000 in fines, it says. Total crap - read the law - there is NO CAP on the fine, no jail time possible - and the fine is to be no greater than $500/day of operation. (Though, it does leave an open option for civil suits)
Whatever, this article is bullshit - the law is fine - this is just a plot to get some good publicity for an obviously pathetic journalist.
Though, it appears you should need a license to type - look at how many people got stirred up because this one guy was too STUPID to understand the language he was reading.
For convenience sake, I'll call the "fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury" phrase simply "damage," and "to a person or to property" a "something." Likewise, "engaging in the business of obtaining or furnishing [etc]... information related to" I'll call investigate.
The section you cite talks about investigation into the damage of something.
Some kind of loss or damage has occurred, if it's your business to investigate how in a context of providing legally supportable information in this regard, they're saying you need a PI license. If you want to take this to court, you basically have to have first proven you're familiar with the laws in your state on such matters, and you have to put your license on the line for revocation should you be found to be negligent (willfully or otherwise) in your investigation.
If interpreted the way you interpreted this (which I don't think it can be without distortion), then you wouldn't even be able to look at a source control Blame report for who created a bug: it's a work computer so you qualify for "accepts employment," and the bug ostensibly qualifies as a loss (especially certain types of bug); finding out who did it or exactly how the bug is wrong would be "cause or responsibility."
In your interpretation:
Boss: Who failed to check their buffer length?
Programmer: Hmm... [svn blame]... Looks like Joe.
Undercover cop: You're under arrest!
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I am (future was) a Database Administrator in Texas
The way I and my attorney read this...
If a Database goes down I commit an offense if I recover the lost data
or analyze the cause of the loss.
From the statute
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts
as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or
furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property;
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or
furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished
through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the
content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
The castle doctrine applies to your own home, not others. If someone unauthorized is in your house, your life is at risk, and lethal force is acceptable. If someone unauthorized is in your neighbors house, your life is not at risk, and lethal force is not acceptable.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The do not even have to be robbers.
Ha. It is fun to shoot and kill for free. Why do subscription based online gaming and get into trouble with the law for obvious reasons?
You don't need virtual kills, go for the real ones.
Ever considered moving over to the beautiful state of Texas, btw?
There are two problems with that position.
First, few people are competent to make informed decisions about the guy without third party validation (licensing). The problem isn't whether the guy can handle the 95% of cases that are routine, it's whether he can recognize the 5% of cases that -aren't- routine and require more extensive intervention. This sounds trivial, but it isn't. A lot of serious problems start as nothing but aches or a fever. Lose a few friends or relatives and you suddenly take the 'small stuff' much more seriously.
(That 95%, though, is a good argument for allowing RNs to be able to offer primary treatment provided they are supervised by a doctor. You want an easy escalation path if something isn't quite right.)
Second, you're assuming that people are free to make their own choices. In the real world people usually go through insurance companies and that company may say that it will only cover visits to Dave's Discount Doctoring. If you want to go to somebody with a license, it's out-of-network and subject to a hefty copay. Again, that's fine for the 95% routine cases, but your insurance company has a vested interest in you overlooking that 5% until you move to a new insurance carrier.
You might think this is begging the question, but you'll always need health insurance. Not for the routine care that you could probably pay out-of-pocket, but for the catastrophic care after being in a severe accident, developing cancer, having a heart attack or stroke, etc. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 80% of the average person's lifetime medical expenses occurs in the last week of their life.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It seems to me that a large portion of "licensed" professions are ones where lives are at stake, or the stakes are high. If an operation is botched, a bridge collapses, or many other things, then people can die. Others, such as lawyers, simple require a hefty amount of skill/knowledge.
Plugging a stick of RAM into a computer, or many other computer tasks, doesn't require a whole lot of skill in many cases.
Yes, a botched child-pr0n case can have serious repercussions, but rather than require *all* computer techs to be licensed, why not have a requirement that suspicious incidents require the consultation of a licensed investigator, and leave the general tech-work alone?
This is yet another way conservatives "gotta get big gubment off their backs". Odd how that always ends up looking more like a culture of corruption, isn't it?
Call the cops, eh?
What do they do when the computer's owner claims that the tech planted the porn on my disk? It's difficult to fight these charges (you have to fight jury anger at the material in addition to the substantial legal costs, you need to have a plausable reason why the tech would do it and have access to the material, etc.), but it's a legitimate question during the appeal process.
This isn't a moot point. Jonathan Turley (jonathanturley.org) recently had a piece on a guy who won a suit against his former employer. They found porn during routine maintenance and fired him on the spot. One small problem -- it had been somebody else's computers first and they had screwed up the antivirus checking when they reassigned the computer. So it had been infected by dozens of viruses and become part of a botnet carrying illegal material. It was totally without his knowledge, reasonable expectation, or ability to control.
The cases aren't exactly parallel, but it shows that cases have already come up where the problem was incompetent (or even malicious) maintenance.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
With licensing comes my expectation that they are now liable. Doctors, Lawyers, and accountants that are licensed are liable to some degree for their actions or in actions. Will it hold true for the licensed technician? With there be insurance for these new licensed technicians?
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
The "founding fathers" were not for "small government" (this is a bunch of horseshit concocted by modern fiscal libertarians and conservatives). Quite the contrary, those we traditionally call the founding fathers were almost all Federalists (with the exception of a few anti-federalists like Patrick Henry), who made their bones favoring a much stronger and more centralized federal government (hence the term "Federalist"). They even wrote produced a major series of essays justifying why the U.S. should overturn the Articles of Confederation (which provided for a very small, very weak federal government without the power to even levy taxes) in favor of a U.S. Constitution (which greatly expanded the power, scope, and taxing ability of the federal government).
.
The Founding Fathers' "big federal government" ideas were, in fact, so controversial at the time that they had to introduce a series of amendments of the Constitution (guaranteeing protections of individual rights and allowing for checks against government power) to even get their Constitution ratified by the states.
.
The idea that the Federalists were for "small government" shows a laughable ignorance of the early history of the Republic. It's like arguing that Stalin and Trotsky were for capitalism.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm still surprised that PC repair guys have not been forced to be licensed like TV repair people. Easier for the 'state' to track what is going on, impose restrictions, and get some extra revenue in the process. ( and drive up repair costs so its cheaper to buy a new one instead of getting an old one fixed.. gotta support that throwaway economy we have banked on for our countries survival )
"sorry we aren't legally allowed to service that pre-DRM secured computer. We are obligated to confiscate that machine and report you." "Thanks for choosing speedy-PC for your repair needs".
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Huh?
I'm oversimplifying here (I'm at work, and the textbook on Texas criminal law my wife was just issued is at home), but one of the requirements for a shooting is justified as "self-defense" (the grounds for deciding not to prosecute on this case) here in Texas is that one be legitimately afraid for one's life. Being charged at by someone you know to be a criminal is grounds for a reasonable person to be afraid for their life.
As there's no argument that a reasonable person should be afraid for their life at a mere knock on the door by a person of different ethnicity; I fail to see any merit in your comparison.
save the kitties!!!
Now you won't be able to report those kitty porn pics you ran across while removing "bad files" from a pc you were working on...the kitty porn monsters will find texas a safe place to live...report it and you goto jail and get beaten into submission...
Bush is from Texas...guess even the idiots produced in Texas are on a bigger scale then anywhere else..
I agree that not waiting for the dispatcher was a bad call. If it weren't for the officer's testimony about the moments leading up to the shooting itself, I would have been on the side of the prosecution for this one -- but if someone you know to be in the process of committing a criminal act and just ordered to freeze takes of running in a direction that brings them closer to you, that's grounds to be afraid for one's life, hence self-defense.
What tort could you argue?
The PI requirement has caused problems for me before this, most frequently in installing cameras and home automation elements that provide alarms, surveillance, or intrusion detection. Theoretically, in order to provide an Internet-capable camera system on a friend's ranch in West Texas (designed to alert him in Houston when certain events occurred 650 miles away) I needed a PI license. (Alarm installation requires a lower level than that required for real investigative work, but it's still onerous.) Since I've developed a couple of Neural Net hacks that improve the accuracy of the alerts, this requirement costs my customers in the form of extra money or diminished capability. The firms that are allowed to do this may only have one licensed PI in the company, but they are the official "supervisor" for these type projects. The technicians may be less qualified than my guys.
This type of licensing is a form of unionization. It restricts the number of persons in the field, and therefore drives up the cost of services, producing a government-subsidized profit to the complying provider. The underlying supposition is that "People Are No Good", the government needs to protect us, and, coincidentally, government cronies happen to be available who are qualified to perform the services. It sucks, doesn't it?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
As for my personal opinion, I think that the vast majority of medical conditions can be dealt with by someone with significantly less training/licensing (eg. nurses, online/telephone professionals, etc) than is currently demanded;
That's true but you are missing the real reason we use doctors. You pay for a doctor because he/she has the training to recognize when what *seems* like the regular stuff is not. The value of a surgeon isn't in being able to do yet another ho-hum appendectomy; it's when the patient has a complication on the operating table and you need the highest level of talent to immediately figure out what went wrong and fix it before the patient dies. Think of it a bit like insurance - you're not so much guarding against day to day costs - instead you are keeping yourself from ruin when everything goes to hell.
I'm married to a physician and have several close relatives that are nurses. Furthermore a client of mine is a nursing school. Nursing is a hard job and I would never disrespect anyone in the field but there is a BIG talent and training gulf between most nurses and the vast majority of doctors. For routine treatment it often doesn't matter but a lot of medicine in being able to recognize what is not routine and knowing what to do about it.
I did, it is not about computer repair, it is about those offering private security services like alarm systems, security guards, and private investigation (including computer forensics). These have been regulated in Texas since at least 1980 when I worked as a security guard in Dallas. This is the problem with news by blogging - no fact checking necessary.
Thank you very much for summing up so concisely why so many of us in Old Europe(tm) think that too many of you USAans are one beer short of a six-pack. You guys there still seem to believe that the Wild Wild West is an appropriate metapher to live by.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
You cite the doctor-patient privilege. Is that a legally recognized privilege (in the US)?
I know you are protected talking to attorneys, priests, and husbands/wives. I do not know if doctor-patient communication protection is recognized legally or not. You say it is. I have heard differently. Anyone got a citation?
Can someone smarter than me set the record straight?
Being able to effectively defend oneself when charged at by an individual known to have criminal intent is hardly something which is only reasonable in the "wild west". Was going outside with the gun in the first place an ill-thought-out action? Absolutely. Was opening fire when the criminals ran obliquely towards him justified as done in self-defense? Absolutely. A police officer was witness to the entire incident, meaning that the testimony to the effect that they did in fact approach him was presumptively reliable.
On another note, we have a great deal of rural space populated by hostile wildlife. I have relatives by marriage who literally need to have a member of the family standing by with a shotgun to fend against alligators and water snakes when swimming on their property. In such an environment, private ownership of firearms is effectively a necessity.
I agree that robbing the neighbor's home was no justification for the shooting.
However, running towards the man with the gun after he ordered them to freeze put him in fear for his life and thus give him justification which did not previously exist.
The person who published this article needs to be flogged, repeatedly. They have a gross misunderstanding of the law, and sadly this legislation was passed in Sept 2007, nearly 9 months ago. Old news is old.... The updated legislation makes specific references to data investigations. You can retreive the data, put it on a CD, etc. So long as you do not investigate the data, create reports based on it etc, you do not require a PI license. For computer repair, so long as you do not offer a service to investigate recovered data, you are in the clear. You can recover all the old, deleted files you like, and not have to be a licensed PI or Investigation Company. Again, who ever wrote this story has done way more harm than good....
I wonder if now you'll need a PI license to marry your sister or other relative.....
only in texas....
Excellent points. The GP should do what he is being paid to do and not overstep his bounds.
I started out reading with TFAs with the attitude of "F*ing overreaching, mistargeted govt jerks...". But your post convinced me that, in this case, the Texas govt might just be right after all.
Yes, child porn is absolutely abhorrent, and so is an overreaching governent.
Many others here have described appropriate 'hands off' ways to deal with this without the invasive spying you describe.
In contrast, you are abusing the trust of the people who pay you. It is no different than being hired as a plumber to upgrade a kitchen and going searching in the bedroom to see if the customer has any dirty books. You are going where you are not authorized, and if you did it in my shop, I'd have you hauled up on whatever cracking laws applied, even though I have nothing to hide. It is truly offensive, and if you want to do it, you should be regulated.
if it's your business to investigate how in a context of providing legally supportable information in this regard
The bit that's not clear to me, and that is causing the concern, is that it's not clear to people wearing engineer hats that this law is explicitly restricted to the context of "providing legally supportable information". That's the bit that has people worried. That's the but I'm asking for barrister-wig coverage for.
Your example is covered by the exception for people who are working on their employer's equipment and premises. That exception probably covers most repair shops as well. It doesn't seem to cover contractors or "Geek Squad" types who do repairs on-site.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is it just me, or did the law actually read that it's only illegal to glean the information from the computer. Who's to say if I'm gathering information or not from someone's PC unless I officially try to present it as evidence in some kind of court case... In which case I shouldn't have been getting the info in the first case and it can be thrown out. Is it just me or is this law not as bad as the article makes it out to be. And what PC repair companies already employ PI's??
Is it not apparent this is about monitoring content on PCs? I would be surprised if Dept of Homeland Security was not behind the legislation, perhaps with Texas being a test case before other states. Will IT departments be next? Because terrorists, also known as people not accepting the government's policies, are EVERYWHERE.
The other state is Florida. See a pattern?
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/docs/psb_opin_sum.pdf
"We understand the term 'computer forensics' to refer to the analysis of computer-based data, particularly hidden, temporary, deleted, protected or encrypted files, for the purpose of discovering information related (generally) to the causes of events or the conduct of persons."
"For example, when the service provider is charged with reviewing the clientâ(TM)s computer-based data for evidence of employee malfeasance, and a report is produced that describes the computer-related activities of an employee, it has conducted an investigation and has therefore provided a regulated service."
"Computer repair or support services should be aware that if they offer to perform investigative services ... they must be licensed as investigators."
doctors too have a code of ethics, also an oath. politicians are supposed to have a code of ethics. police also have laws that regulate their behaviour, yet we have police brutality. should i continue ?
i dont think that having a 'code of ethics' or 'wanting to keep the license' is a guarantee of anything. if they can get away with (and those who are trained in law can get away with things easier than those who are not) they can do it.
Read radical news here
PI license only needed if you are investigating data for a 3rd party. No PI license needed for repairs. http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/07/bill_author_computer_techs_dont_need_a_privat.html
From this, it seems to me that most computer repair activities wouldn't count as investigation company activities unless they fall under part (D), such as explaining to a client that a computer crash was due to a lightning-induced power surge, or that their wireless network is broken because the neighbors' kids seem to have hacked the WEP key and changed the network settings.
;)
Personally, I'm going to continue consulting-as-usual here in Austin, but I might update my client agreement to include a line like "We are not a licensed private investigations company, and hence cannot legally perform investigative activities concerning your computer data. You agree that the scope of any work to be performed concerning your data will be limited to troubleshooting, problem solving, and analysis." Or some such
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
This may be trolling, but my gut is telling me that this is a big step toward internet regulation.
A short look at the global news will show you that the power of the internet, global communication, and technological availability is a key to rebellion. Being a computer repair professional gives you intimate access to a lot of machines capable of this global communication and rebellion. Hence, it becomes regulated.
Beware the technology license.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Sometimes I think a parenting course should be mandatory, but that's just me.
I don't believe in making anything like that mandatory. I do believe though it would be good to have parenting classes readily available. I don't know if they still do it but the Catholic Church used to require Catholics who were getting married to go through counseling before they could have a church wedding, which I believe is a good idea as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No matter how often "ethical hackers" claim the word for themselves or try to give it a meaning contrary to what the general populace believes the word to mean, it still carries that meaning.
The meaning has been maligned because that's how the mass media uses it and no one corrects them on it.
Look at the etymology of "hack".
I have, have you? The Online Etymology Dictionary is pretty good, read the second (2) entry particularly. As used with writers "hack" dates back to 1749, whereas with criminals using computers it first appears in 1984. It's ethical meaning was used years before then. I first came across the ethical meaning in the mid to late 1970s in magazines like "Byte: The small and micro systems journal" magazine. My fav writers in "Byte" was Steve Ciarcia who wrote the column "Circuit Cellar" which became it's own magazine and Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Shut the fuck up please, nobody gives a shit about your idealism.
P.S. How exactly do you want to "treat" a serial rapist, or perhaps a drug dealer? Give them and ethics lesson?
This law was lobbied for and enacted due to persistent pressure from The Texas Association of Private Investigators. The Texas PI's saw the money being made from Forensic "Examinations" and wanted in on the perceived goldmine. So, they ran out and bought EnCase and other such automated tools and proclaimed to all that would listen that "Data Security Consultants" were operating without a PI license by performing Forensic "Examinations". They all have proclaimed their "expertise" as forensic "Investigators" after buying some software and taking a class on how to use it. There isn't one of them that can provide expert technical testimony on TCP/IP, protocols, or any other such things that arise out of a real Forensic's Examination to show the difference between evidence and exculpatory issues. They are "point and click" experts only. They even went so far as to try to say that anyone providing "Data Security Services" was in violation of the law because they had the word "Security" in their company name or title. How do I know this" Because I owned a "Network and Data Security Services" company for 10 years and had many Texas PI's file complaints against the company because we had the word "Security" in the name. We provided firewalls, IDS, anti-spam, etc systems and they argued that we had to have a PI license to do so, strictly because of the word "Security".
These PI's need to stick to spying on cheating spouses and leave the real security to those who are qualified to do so.
If the brakes go out on your car and you take it to a mechanic to "investigate" why they went out, and then find that the brakes were tampered with, the resultant findings of which could be used as evidence against someone, they need a PI license under the Texas PI law.
You can thank the Texas Association of PI's for this crap.
IANAL, but below are the relevant sections (as far as I can tell) of the new law. Can someone explain to me how this forces PC techs to have a PI license?
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
snip
b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
Just as useless, but much more fun