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
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Oh hell, this would shut down the entire fucking state!
Don't want to break the law but work in IT? Shut down the servers and start passing out pin and paper. All calculations will take place with personal calculators. After all, we can't touch the data without a PI license.
Life is not for the lazy.
Who crapped on Louisiana's legal system? I just said the law there is different and you really can't make assumptions.
"red haired bastard stepchild" doesn't always mean bad.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
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
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?
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."
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?
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.
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.
Basically, the Napoleonic code worked like a cross between a court martial and a Congressional inquiry. The stated objective was to get to the truth of the matter by means of inquisitors. The problem with the system is that it was designed by militaristic megalomaniacs in the Roman era and perfected by a militaristic megalomaniac in France. Inquisitor-based justice is more easily abused than other forms, to the point where the word "inquisition" has entered the English language in a very negative sense.
The Anglo-Saxon system was basically invented by Alfred the Great (the only king of England to earn the title of "great", such was his achievements) but was merged to some degree from Danelaw, the Danish legal system brought over by Nordic invaders. This legal code asserted certain rights and certain responsibilities for all. This was properly codified under the Magna Carta, which asserted limits to power, the right of an individual to a trial by peers, the right of an individual to not be convicted on unsubstantiated testimony, the prohibition of fines or penalties which denied a person their livelihood and the diplomatic immunity of foreign merchants except at times of war. In all cases, though, it was a trial between a prosecutor and a defendant in which the event in question was less important than whether the defendant should be punished. (Prior to King Alfred, law was whatever the elders or the local leaders decided it was, it was not uniform and there were no established rights or bounds. Prior to the Magna Carta, rulers could not be held to account for abuse of power, and even afterwards it was rare, but in theory it withdrew much immunity from Barons, Lords and the King himself. Each layer asserted stronger rights with stronger bounds and stronger protections.)
Really, a future legal system needs to borrow ideas from both. It's unsound to prosecute a case before establishing what the facts of the case are. Facts should be studied in a more neutral light, only getting into the spin doctoring once the jury knows what is being spun. The Anglo-Saxon system, by being very formalized and definite in rights, works wonderfully if the jury is swayed more on an intellectual basis than an emotional one, far more so than the Napoleonic system. It is easy to corrupt, though, if information is denied and one side plays dirty.
In England, you'll sometimes see a mix of the two concepts, where there is a public inquest followed by a trial, where the inquest establishes the facts and the trial then prosecutes on the basis of those facts. That's a good arrangement - not perfect, but a lot better than most.
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)
Yes, but society is potentially impacted by generally stupid people making uninformed decisions. Eventually this can come back as a cost to society that the government (which is ultimately you and me) will have to shoulder.
I think it makes sense for skills to be licensed in areas where life and limb are potentially at risk. Structural engineers, doctors, dentists, etc. A bad apple can cause a lot of damage to a person's physical wellbeing and I think it's reasonable for the state to ensure that people practicing these skills are qualified to do so.
Plumbing? Pretty much the worst that can happen is you flood your basement. PC repair? Maybe you get a computer virus or your computer still doesn't work. These aren't generally things that are a matter of personal or public safety so I don't think they merit being licensed.
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.
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...
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?
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?
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".
So, if your TV repairman sees evidence that you have a meth lab, he's not allowed to report it?
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
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?
...the problem being that the law requires licensing saying you know how to do P.I. work, but no actual knowledge of computers is required.
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