Slashdot Mirror
Follow-up On Texas PI Law For PC Techs
boyko.at.netqos writes "Network Performance Daily has put out an in-depth series on the Texas law that requires private investigator licenses for computer repair techs, network analysts, and other IT professionals. It includes an interview with the author of the law, Texas Rep. Joe Driver, the captain of the Texas Private Security Bureau, RenEarl Bowie, and Matt Miller at the Institute for Justice, which is suing the state over the law. Finally, there's a series summary and editorial."
And i hope you are the first customer that gets to pay the extra amount.
There will also be bonding involved too, now that they will be liable. So tack on a few more bucks to your bill.
Oh, and since the IT guy charges more, his customers will have to charge a little more to recoup. So that hair cut goes up. ( among other small business services )
And don't forget the IT guys that cant get bonded due to a shady past but are technically competent who will turn to crime to feed their families.
Still feel good about having the government interfere?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its not about making things better, its about government control of yet another industry and increased taxes.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I did RTFA. And yes, the law was intended to work that way. Unfortunately, that's not what the law says. And since almost any work on a computer involves investigating data on that computer not accessible to the public (the user's firewall settings, for example, aren't available to the public), any such work falls under the "investigation" part and requires a PI license.
And the law will be enforced based on what it says, not on what anyone thinks it should have said instead.
It's simple. If you are investigating a network problem and run across a criminal act, then you are not an investigator. If you are suspecting that there is a virus (a criminal act) and are trying to track down who has the virus, you are not an investigator. If you suspect a virus and you are trying to track down the person who created it in order to testify against them in court, then you are an investigator. What is confusing is what we do all the time. We play with words that have specific meanings for us that don't mean the same to all people. "Hacker" vs "cracker" or any of the other examples where the definition and common use don't match up. They mean "investigator" in the sense not of someone who investigates things, but in the sense of investigating suspected criminal activity in order to aid in the prosecution of a person. From the statements of those that made and enforce the law, even sending in your child's computer to have it "investigated" for porn, chat records, browser cache, whatever isn't an investigation. For one, there is no suspected criminal activity. For another, even if found, there is no desire to use that to prosecute them. The person going through the hard drive is not "investigating" the computer, but is instead gathering and passing along data.
However, the law is written such that if "investigation" were to take on the vernacular, then nearly all activities computer-related could be considered investigations. In fact, it could be taken to be as absurd as viewing the "private" page of someone on Myspace would be an investigation and thus a criminal offense. So, there is nothing controversial about the law as currently clarified by those involved in writing and enforcing it, however, with only the change in the definition of a single word to a more common usage of it, it becomes something that makes a large number of regular activities (not even just repair, but just use) illegal without a PI license.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm just curious as to how the frig they're ever going to enforce against those among us who build/support machines owned by family and friends.
Selectively.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Wrong. There's a concept in law whereby you can legally discover something without a warrant, if you were acting lawfully at the time.
Illegal search and seizure is a restriction placed on law enforcement. A licensed investigator is not. They are not bound by restrictions on law enforcement, nor are they bound by client/attorney privilege (unless they're working under the direction of an attorney).
If you're repairing a computer, and had a reasonable reason to look at the files, finding child porn and then reporting it is absolutely appropriate (and required by law).
You might have a case on some type of trespass law if you didn't have reason to look at the files, but it's not a violation of unlawful search.
If you're looking for a stolen document, it's perfectly permissible to find a stolen piano - it's in plain view. If you're looking for a stolen piano, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do if you find a stolen document.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
And the simple fact that we are expected to take their word for 'how the law will be enforced' is a problem all by it self.
What, really, stops them from saying that it won't affect Joe Geeksquad, and then realising that there is money to be made by licensing every computer geek? I agree, that 'investigator' has a legal meaning that is not what the populus expects, and that this law probably won't be targeting repair geeks. However, if the law is only understandable to those creating it, what makes sure that the people enforcing it also understand it?