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."
They haven't made it 3 again?
We can't afford universal health care because imagine the tax dollars that would be spent; but we can pay for this kind of arbitration? And how exactly is having a PI license going to better the situation at hand, which is obviously that tech people can unethically snoop through customers' files? Does having a license magically make this ok? Does it somehow imply an agreement by the customer that their files are open for review, while without a license, this agreement does not exist?
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 ----
That was the lamest post ever. Yes, some prices will go up.
and what the hell is this:
"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."
You're like a cornucopia of logical fallacy!
Not that I agree with this particular state law, but there are a lot of places I like the government legislating.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Read. The. Fucking. Article. A computer tech only has to be a PI if they are searching a computer for evidence of a crime.
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
Follow the links and read the law yourself. The context is PC Techs in the Forensics or Private Security business domains, NOT PC Techs in general. The Geek Squad at Best Buy isn't going to have to get PI Licenses nor is Joe Coder but the techs at Joes PI and Divorce Lawyer Shack would if he ever wants to do any work involving electronic media containing private info. For instance if your wife wants to know the details of your Porn collection as part of the divorce her PI or lawyer would need licensed techs. That's not a bad thing. But it's just going to drive legal costs up which will have an effect (small) on other prices. Reading the law I'm not sure if a corporate internal fraud or forensic techs (to find out about your MP3 collection on the work SAN) or those performing consulting services will need licenses or not. Probaby not as one clause in the license allows work to be supervised by a license holder so that may be the loophole. Just make sure your Chief Security Officer has a PI license. I agree the law needs some clarification but that can be left to the discretion of the court as to what the intent was (risky move) or someone can lobby the Texas legislature to update the law. In the meantime I seriously doubt anyone is going to be rushing to apply the law to everyone who MAY do PC work.
Need is a tricky thing.
SOme people believe we need anti- drug laws, others don't.
Some people think the change to allow women to vote was wrong.
I think your question is wrong,, and will always cause a debate.
We need to look at specific legislation and think about it, and debate on that. Even if we disagree with it, if the majority of people want it, then they are correct to legislate it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I guess you don't know what the term "phishing" refers to, because what I described finding is exactly what I described looking for: a phishing web page.
According to this bill, if you believe that your website or a website you support has been compromised, you are not legally allowed to investigate that compromise because the compromise itself is a crime, and even looking to see how it happened so you can prevent it from happening again requires a PI license under the bill.
The majority of the people don't understand the subject, for that matter neither do the legislators.
That holds true for drug laws as well btw.
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.
Are you seriously speculating on back alley disk defragmentation? What's next, a poster showing a PC tech laying on the ground with a busted PC next to him, and the phrase "NEVER AGAIN" underneath?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
That is not what the law says, unless you, specifically, are IN THE BUSINESS of investigating crimes and for that purpose collect, analyze, and INVESTIGATE the data that is not generally available to the public.
You aren't. You are in the business of running a computer network. That is what you were employed to do. This section of the law does NOT APPLY TO YOU.
I live in Texas and I am calling my rep over this.
Perhaps you should ask him about the modem tax while you've got him on the line.
Being located in Texas working for an organization as the CSO/CISO with 24+ years experience in the computer industry doing nearly every job including CIO, earned my CISSP/ISSAP/ISSMP in 2000, pro bono work for the Dept of Homeland Security and directing a team of IS, network and infosec professionals, I am concerned about the ramifications of this new law. By one interpretation, my teams would be indemnified while doing their forensics and analysis work if I am licensed as a PI in Texas. Although a burden none of us particularly wants, I began researching what is necessary for the license. From what I have been able to find, I can apply for the license, however it requires a "Company Name and License Number"; basically requiring me to be employed by a licensed investigations company to apply. Additionally, to qualify for a "manager" PI license, I need to maintain supervisory employment with a sponsoring licensed investigations company on a "daily basis" or forfeit my license. So, to act as a manager overseeing the forensic, investigative and analysis activities of my PC techs, network engineers, developers, and certified infosec employees (many of whom are ex-military intelligence), I must hold a Texas manager PI license; however I cannot work for a non-investigative company to maintain that license or even obtain an individual PI license. A legal Mobius loop created by a clueless "insurance salesman" that repeatedly states that the issues this creates are beyond his comprehension running the Texas State committee on law enforcement as a state representative. Very frustrating.
The problem is the system. A new guy gets elected and he starts coming up with all sorts of laws. He puts keywords like "child porn", 'terrorist', 'safe', 'protect' that people won't vote against and then his friends add earmarks and riders.
This bullshit will sink us.
back alley disk defragmentation...
heh, that image cracks me up.
Hooded seller: "You disk is in order, your seektimes should be better"
Hodded buyer: "Thanks man, your a f* lifesaver"
Hodded seller: "if anyone body asks, you don't know me. You mention my name to anyone, we never do business again. Not for malware, or a browser upgrade"
.Even if we disagree with it, if the majority of people want it, then they are correct to legislate it, provided it doesn't violate the State and US Constitutions.
There - I fixed it for you. Majority rule does not mean minority subjugation.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I work for one of the many telecom companies along I-75 in Dallas
Sorry but I-75 runs between Michigan and Florida and comes no where near Texas. I've lived in both states and have traveled the whole thing a number of tymes. What's in Dallas maybe something75 but not I-75 ("I" meaning Interstate and part of the interstate highway system).
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This reminds me of when they started requiring HVAC personnel to be fully certified/licensed and to purchase 20K worth of gear to ensure freon did not escape into the atmosphere back in the early 90's. Much of the same speculation and fear ran through that industry, and it was one of the reasons I made the move to IT. Suddenly, things that had been done for years could not be done without a huge financial outlay by the people doing the job.
Now the end result of this (taking the environment out of the picture for the moment), was that a lot of independent and small shop HVAC techs went out of business, and the big HVAC outfits leveraged that into more business for themselves while attempting to get umbrella coverage. This umbrella would allow them to get the 20K worth of gear at better prices, get the techs certified, and pass those costs back to the public. And since they didn't have as much competition from the small shops, they could charge as much as the market would bear.
Several years later, as techs took advantage of the companies generosity in providing them with the certification, and the price of recovery systems has fallen, they have left the big boys to form independent and small shop HVAC repair shops. So it was big shake-out, in which some people got out of the business, some big companies got fat, and after a period of time the little guys got back in the picture.
If you look at this from the same perspective, you could see where some big box companies could parlay this into an opportunity to do the same thing. Independent techs can't afford the licensing? Hire them and put them through the course for certification. Hey, looks good on paper - earn while you learn, with a nice little clause that you would have to work for them for n years so they can recoup their investment.
Serves two purposes - kill off the small guys who compete for the same customers anyway, and up the bottom line for that business unit.
As for the criminal past thing - the last IT company I worked for did extensive background checks on everybody they hired. I'd wager that 4 out of 10 candidates never made it through the door because of those background checks. When, exactly, did IT become the safe-haven work environment of the criminal element? I thought most of those guys worked in the financial sector. But seriously, a lot of them would end up working for less than desirable wages at one of the big companies just to stay employed, and some would get out of IT altogether. Me, I just moved from working directly in the IT industry to doing IT work in an industry where there is still money to be made.
Reference Here