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."

Comments

Slaughterhouse Cases

[snowgirl]

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!"

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[TheSHAD0W]

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."

And if the patients know this, what exactly is wrong with it?

This is one good reason why medical care costs so much in this country.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the garbage man need a PI license, just in case he sees something in the trash? Does the gardener need one just in case the plants dieing in a corner of the yard are due to buried evidence?

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are a lot of crooks in this country, and was the reason these kind of laws were put into place in the first place. We all expect doctors to have a certain level of training, and just because someone says they have the equivalent, doesn't mean they do.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[Jartan]

We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even.

Uhh yea but those licenses actually pertain to the profession in question.

I don't know why the summary says "small repair shops". In reality such a requirement will throw a total wrench into any big chain that does computer maitenance. Theres no way the kids who work in Best Buy have PI licenses.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[ardle]

It's cheap to force them to get PI licences: how about a license to practise computer repair, or something? At least they'd be trained in that (maybe).
Repair staff are effectively being hired to spy on people: they should be paid, rather than the other way around.
The people gathering the evidence are also capable of planting evidence - and there are a lot of computer repair businesses.
What happens if someone doesn't report something they find (and doesn't blackmail their customer, either?)

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[loraksus]

We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even.

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.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[e4g4]

No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training, my lawyer to have law training - but do I expect my local PC tech guy to have investigative training? Do you really want to hand your computer to someone who is trained at gleaning information? When I fix a computer - I make a studious effort to ignore the personal contents of a machine...this is just ridiculous.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[Spacepup]

Doctors require a license as a way for laymen to distinguish between a quack who might kill you and someone learned who might kill you. Structural engineers need a license so you can have a reasonable expectation that what they design wont fall down on people. It isn't unusual to have to have a license to work in a particular field. What is unusual is to be required to have a license for a field relatively unrelated. It's rediculous to require structural engineers to get a medical license just because they build hospitals.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

And if the patients know this, what exactly is wrong with it?

To play liberal's advocate for a moment, the US health care system as it stands today requires licensing to get malpractice insurance. This is a pretty reasonable expectation should say, your leg be accidentally amputated during an annual checkup. This same policy applies to your insurance payables for eg. massage therapy. Registered therapist's services are invariably insured, whereas non-licensed massage services (teehee) are almost never covered.

The subtle reason for any of this concern is the principle of "informed consent". Without a medical degree, how can you effectively evaluate (in advance, no less) the skills of someone whose actions potentially put your life in definite, immediate risk? The liberal mindset is that you are not allowed to choose, even if you actually are informed, since other uninformed people will frequently make "the wrong choice".

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; heart surgeries are much less common than colds, as dreamy as McDreamy is.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[un1xl0ser]

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!"

I guess that we should also make anyone who develops photos get a PI license as well. That's a great way to boost salaries at Walmart.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are a lot of crooks in this country, and was the reason these kind of laws were put into place in the first place. We all expect doctors to have a certain level of training, and just because someone says they have the equivalent, doesn't mean they do.

Of course, but that doesn't mean we should be arresting everyone on Slashdot for speculating about legal issues without being members of the bar. As long as you're not misrepresenting your credentials, what's the problem? And as far as this case goes, nobody who goes to Best Buy with computer problems is even asking for an investigator -- they just want somebody to install antivirus and make AOL work again. So what misrepresentation is occurring that requires a licensing agency?

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[snowgirl]

There are no evidence collection rules about trash. The owner of that item has already released ownership and rights to keep it from search and seizure.

Here is a hint for you. If you throw something illegal away, you're an idiot, because cops don't need anyone's permission to collect that evidence anymore.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[jlarocco]

Repairing a computer is much more likely to produce evidence against someone.

What? That's most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.

Not that I'm particularly worried about this law. The black market for computer repair people without PI licenses will be HUGE. Computer savvy neighbor kids who know how to reinstall Windows and upgrade RAM are going to love this law.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[tomhudson]

It is meant to apply to those whose work involves the review and analysis of material stored on a computer.

I actually went and looked at the law itself. Yes, it applies to those whose work involves the review and analysis of material stored on a computer. That could be read to apply to pretty much anyone. Do any sysadmin work? Debug any cron jobs? Trying to find out why a partition got full? Heck, read email?

The law is really, really dumb. Especially since much "computer forensics" is just people (including cops) trained to run a few perl scripts via a nice point-n-click gui. they wouldn't know how to do a sector-by-sector analysis of a drive if you held a gun to their kids' head.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[badasscat]

Repairing a computer is much more likely to produce evidence against someone.

I would argue that firing a gun is much more likely to produce evidence against someone than repairing a computer will, but you don't need any kind of license for that in Texas.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, it's ridiculous when viewed from the perspective of the computer-using public. But if you look at this the way an overarching government would, then the idea of having trained snitches in every computer store is very appealing. I mean, look at post-WWII East Germany ... they eventually had half the population spying on the other half.

If there was ever a time for a Texan to learn how to fix his or her own computer system ... this is it.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[_KiTA_]

Is this a joke? Would you have untrained "doctors" able to prescribe narcotics? Over use antibiotics? Perform surgery?

I would hardly put Joe-College Student reinstalling Windows on par with a trained professional who went to school for 12 years to be able to do, you know, brain surgery or something?

Do we really, really want to live in a society that swapping a CD-ROM drive requires several years of professional training?

Apple and Geek Squad executives, put your freakin' hands down.

Besides that, collecting evidence about crime is very, very definitely not my problem. Child Porn on some pervert's machine? Call the cops, get them to get an engineer out and -- more importantly -- a warrant for the drive. Despite 8 years of lawless Neo-Con rule, you still need a warrant for this kinda stuff. In theory.

Fortunately this will be shot down in court.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess my Dr. should have a PI license so that if I use drugs he can tell the police then. Or my mechanic should have PI so if he finds child porn in my trunk I can be reported. Lets just make a PI license a requirement for entering the country... that'll work!

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[letxa2000]

"Liberals" seem to fight a hell of a lot more often and with more passion to protect the right to choice in virtually every situation, while the "conservatives" want more laws restricting what people can do.

Actually both liberals and conservatives want to protect choice--just on different issues. Conservatives want to protect your choice to spend your money but want to apply their concepts of morality on society. Liberals, meanwhile, don't really care what you do morally speaking as long as you do what they tell you to do with your money.

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.

The only ones that really have a passion for freedom of choice across the board are libertarians. They have some good ideological points, though I think their platform is lacking from a practical standpoint.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[tsm_sf]

Or (as I've seen it put somewhere before) Conservatives want government out of the boardroom, Liberals want government out of the bedroom.

It's interesting that you picked the Conservative PoV as the most moral.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[arminw]

..... Look at the requirements to be a barber or beautician....

It seems that equating those who work on computers with those who work on people is gross foolishness. It is especially foolish to require a PI license for someone who repairs a computer. By the rationale that supposedly went into this law, anybody who has access to data should need such a license. After all, they may come across some data that the cops might need that must be preserved properly and pristine, in order to be stand up in a court of law.

It might be instructive to learn who the monied interests are that lobbied for this law. There is very little law made anywhere these days, that does NOT have some money reason behind it. Laws generally get suggested by those who stand to gain financially by the existence of said laws. If such people or companies have the money to put behind the appropriate politicians, they won't hesitate to do so. As the saying goes, "Follow the money".

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[cayenne8]

"No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training, my lawyer to have law training - but do I expect my local PC tech guy to have investigative training? Do you really want to hand your computer to someone who is trained at gleaning information? When I fix a computer - I make a studious effort to ignore the personal contents of a machine...this is just ridiculous."

I think this is crazy too.

To balance it out...ok, make them all have to be PI's. However, just pass a 2nd law making anything found on a computer without a valid search warrent (before it is cracked open) invalid in a court of law. A person working on a PC is not supposed to be looking for/at files that are not part of the problem to the system working. This way...if something is stumbled across, it is inadmissible in a court of law.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[CodeBuster]

Actually, with new desktops costing only a few hundred dollars now most people will probably just junk the broken machine and get a new one. Let's be realistic here, with computers fast becoming a commodity cheaper than a decent television many people will just chuck it when it breaks instead of having it repaired or else they will pay their neighbor's teenager under the table to fix it on the sly. This law is completely silly in that way. Would it be illegal to help out a friend by recovering his crashed hard disk with Knoppix if you don't have a PI license? What a bunch of crap, I expected better of Texas.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[mrchaotica]

But my health insurer is able to make that judgement and also has a clear incentive to steer me away from doctors who are likely to place me in bodily danger.

You're kidding, right? What your health insurer has is a clear incentive to send you to the cheapest dumbass they can find, and then simply disbelieve you and deny your claim when you complain that he screwed up.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[h3llfish]

From your answer, I would guess that you have never done this type of IT work before. For most small businesses, it's not nearly as simple as just chucking the old one and getting a new one. First and foremost, there's the small matter of migrating the data.

For instance, one firm that employs me has been using Quicken 2001 for their accounting needs. That product is no longer sold. Getting their crucial accounting data from that old program to some new software is far beyond the average user... FAR beyond. Just choosing a new program to migrate to is more than most small business owners want to deal with.

So, they're faced with the choice of either hiring me (or someone like me) to help them with that, or else attempting to do it themselves with the aid of tech support, which will be frustrating and time consuming at best. This law really hoses people like that. They'll be paying twice as much for that type of service, all so that some private dick can be clicking the keys.

I do think you're correct about a black market for computer repair being created. That's what happens every time the government tries to limit commerce. I'm not always against government regulation. I'm not one of those free market extremists who think that the government should be abolished. But, this is certainly too much.

Re:Slaughterhouse Cases

[rugatero]

There's no way to prove that you didn't put it there yourself to frame him, and your word -- with you not being a P.I. or law enforcement officer -- isn't strong enough to override that doubt, so the evidence is inadmissible.

Actually, being a PI would theoretically give you the required expertise to plant the incriminating evidence without it being traceable to your actions, thus giving the guy's claim of a setup increased plausibility.

BAD headline/article

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I don't think the report is accurate

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

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...

Yes ... "(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.

Looks like it's aimed at "computer security" consultants, not repair firms.

Re:This law is to prevent me from perv catching

[Mr2001]

I am a contractor that operates outside the box, almost a vigilante. I cannot name what software I use or I would be easily identified. I do not engage in corp espionage but this law would stop me in my tracks if I were to ever have stepped foot in Texas.

Good! You have no right to snoop around other people's computers, even if you think you're doing it for a noble cause. (Which you aren't, by the way -- if you really wanted to help people, you'd go after the ones creating these images in the first place.)

I hope to turn in many more.

And I hope that when your vigilante game finally lands you in prison, you'll meet up with some of your victims.

Re:MediaSentry? Slashdot agrees!..

[Sancho]

There's a difference. MediaSentry are doing investigative work. PC Repair techs are doing repair work. It's slashdot, so we need a car analogy--would you demand that a automobile mechanic have a PI license so that they can properly handle any potential evidence found in the car during routine repairs?

RIAA

[deraj123]

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.