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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.