Private Investgater Licence To Practice Computer Repair?

[shanenin]

I don't get this. Why in the world would they do something so crazy

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2324220,00.asp

[jcl]

The law requires that investigation companies that do forensic analysis of computers be licensed. Nothing about other computer-related services as far as I can tell.

Edited July 2, 2008 by jcl

[irregularjoe]

I don't get this. Why in the world would they do something so crazy

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2324220,00.asp

My first thought would be that it's an April Fools Day joke that is 3 months late.

My second thought would be that it's Texas, therefore rational thought is not required.

Edited July 2, 2008 by irregularjoe

[Besttechie]

If you read the law it actually states who it's intended for and jcl is right on the money. It's geared towards computer forensics companies.

Also, if you read the original story (here is a quote):

"Many computer forensics companies in big cities like Dallas and Houston employ licensed investigators. They provide litigation support to large law firms. However, many independent repair companies in other areas do not have a license."

There is a difference between computer forensics companies and independent computer repair companies. So to me, it just seems like bad reporting on both PC Mag's end and the people who published the original story.

B

[jcl]

What is the world coming to when you can't trust a CW affiliate to report the news accurately.

(Incidentally, does anyone know how to verb forensic(s)?)

[irregularjoe]

If you read the law it actually states who it's intended for and jcl is right on the money. It's geared towards computer forensics companies.

Also, if you read the original story (here is a quote):

"Many computer forensics companies in big cities like Dallas and Houston employ licensed investigators. They provide litigation support to large law firms. However, many independent repair companies in other areas do not have a license."

There is a difference between computer forensics companies and independent computer repair companies. So to me, it just seems like bad reporting on both PC Mag's end and the people who published the original story.

B

Good point. I stand corrected. As they say: "Reading is fundamental".

Edited July 2, 2008 by irregularjoe

[shanenin]

Even if the law was aimed at forensic computer companies, is it written in a way that affects all repair companies.

[bobbynichols]

(Incidentally, does anyone know how to verb forensic(s)?)

Just a stab ala Bushisms: forensicate; "We're goin to haft'a forensicate your computer there dude to make sure it's forensically pure."

[jcl]

Even if the law was aimed at forensic computer companies, is it written in a way that affects all repair companies.

(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;

....( 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;

[...]

..( 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.

That's it. The only ways I can see the law applying to a repair business are if (1)(C) covers data recovery (recovery of lost property) or (1)(D) covers diagnosing problems (property damage). In the latter case, all repair businesses -- computer techs, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, gardeners, etc -- are investigation companies because they all investigate the cause of property damage. In the former, everyone is an investigation company because everyone at some point in their lives investigates lost property.

(Forensicate sounds like it means changing something by applying forensics to it. Forensicize and forensicalize sound like they mean turning something into a forensic. Forensize and forentize sound too Greek. Sigh.)

Edited July 3, 2008 by jcl

[irregularjoe]

(Incidentally, does anyone know how to verb forensic(s)?)

Just a stab ala Bushisms: forensicate; "We're goin to haft'a forensicate your computer there dude to make sure it's forensically pure."

LOL!!!!! I'm crying from laughter as I read this..........Seriously!........

That is brilliant Bobby.

OK I'm sorry....I know that I'm not supposed to ridicule the nimrod from texas.......and I know that he was a cheerleader at Yale......and he was a C student only because his daddy paid off everyone......but still.....

We should try to turn the other cheek sometimes. It doesn't matter that he is the reason that most of the country and most of the world is living on borrowed time. This is a guy that when times get tough knows that he's "goin to hafta forensicate".

Sorry . I'm still crying with laughter.

Edited July 3, 2008 by irregularjoe

[JDoors]

(Incidentally, does anyone know how to verb forensic(s)?)

Just a stab ala Bushisms: forensicate; "We're goin to haft'a forensicate your computer there dude to make sure it's forensically pure."

Ohhhh, that's good!

[Pete_C]

I don't get this. Why in the world would they do something so crazy

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2324220,00.asp

They actually had an article (editorial) on this in todays Dallas Morning News .

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.4d6c5f6.html

Yahoo! Buzz

Editorial: Private eye law does not compute

09:20 AM CDT on Monday, July 7, 2008

If the Texas Legislature proposed a law requiring all computer repairers to obtain a private investigator's license, with stiff fines for customers who used unlicensed repairers, computer users around the state would justifiably go berserk.

But exactly such a measure quietly sneaked into law last year without even a raised eyebrow when Gov. Rick Perry signed it. The law was the work of Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, chairman of the House Justice Committee.

With apparently minimal knowledge of how computers work, Mr. Driver won unanimous approval of a licensing law that applies to any professional who obtains or furnishes information "through the review and analysis of, and investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public."

Mr. Driver said he never expected that such vague language would apply to computer repairers. "We don't want them to be prosecuted," he said. "That's not the intent." Yet he expressed confusion when told that computer repair, at a minimum, involves turning on a computer and reviewing its contents – data – to find the source of most common problems, like viruses.

"This is language we got specifically from the industry," he said of the private investigators' lobby that wrote his bill, HB 2833. Oh. That's troubling on its face, but it gets worse.

The Department of Public Safety's Private Security Bureau has made clear it will go after computer repairers – especially if they are hired to determine why all this Internet porn is popping up on Grandma's hard drive or why an office worker is visiting prohibited Web sites.

"Computer repair or support services should be aware that if they offer to perform investigative services ... they must be licensed as investigators," the Private Security Bureau said last month. If you hire an unlicensed computer repairer, you could be fined up to $10,000.

Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin describes the law as "overly broad and dangerous." The Libertarian Institute for Justice sued the Private Security Board last week to halt enforcement.

Before sponsoring laws written by lobbyists, Mr. Driver owes his constituents the minimum study time necessary to understand what he's doing. Instead, he has created a legal mess that the courts – and the next Legislature – must fix.

It appears the law passed some time back and that the author is not really computer saavy if you get the drift. He thought he was doing what people in the industry wanted and did not realize that it could be interpreted that all computer repair technicians would be required to get Private Investigators Licenses. However the Department of Public Safety and the arm which grants said licenses believes that it does. Therefore there is action underway to challenge it in court and to get it rewritten next time the legislature is in session , next year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature

The legislature meets in regular session on the second Tuesday in January of each odd-numbered year. The Texas Constitution limits the regular session to 140 calendar days.

Hmm, might have to re read that; does it say that they have to have obtained a license or that they have to be currently licensed?

Hmm, yeah, it looks like you have to have your license current.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Pete_C

[jcl]

The legislator is naive. DPS is maliciously stupid. I still don't understand how the law could apply only to computer repair businesses. Every auto mechanic "engages in the business of obtaining [...] information related to [...] the cause or responsibility for [...] damage [...] to property". Christ, the person who wrote that editorial might have violated (1)(B) by investigating the legislator.

Edited July 8, 2008 by jcl

[Pete_C]

The legislator is naive. DPS is maliciously stupid. I still don't understand how the law could apply only to computer repair businesses. Every auto mechanic "engages in the business of obtaining [...] information related to [...] the cause or responsibility for [...] damage [...] to property". Christ, the person who wrote that editorial might have violated (1)(B) by investigating the legislator.

I agree, and know some individuals who have PI licenses. From what they said, it is not all that hard to get them; you just need a clean record (well not spotless but clean-> not have been convicted of two or more felony offenses, a single felony within the past twenty years; or a Class A misdemeanor within the past ten years;=> Oh yes and you can't be a registered sex offender) , know someone who has one, have three years of related investigative experience , and have a job which requires it , and of course the licensing fee.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/forms/for...tionsforC-L.pdf

Of course the manager (supervisor) must meet stricter requirements (the three years experience); but if you were to interpret that just as loosely any computer repair tech who had been "investigating" files on computers for three years qualifies.

And it is easiest for individuals if their company obtains the license first

[jcl]

It looks like the DPS doesn't believe that repair services are covered after all:

[Network Performance Daily]: So could you give me a couple of examples as to what would be and what would not be covered under this law?

[Capt. RenEarl] Bowie: A basic example would be an individual like a computer repairman who is providing computer repair or support services for a customer; normally that is not a regulated activity. But when an individual is performing work involving the review of computer data for the purpose of investigating criminal or civil matters, then they could fall under the 1701.104, which is considered an investigation company.

[...]

NPD: What about a PC repairman who is being asked to check for viruses on a person's computer?

Bowie: That does not rise to that level either.

NPD: What if a parent brought in a computer that they owned, but which is primarily used by a son or daughter, and they wanted to find out, say, the browsing history?

Bowie: That's just considered normal computer repair or support service.

I should have known better than to give a journalist the benefit of the doubt.

[Pete_C]

It looks like the DPS doesn't believe that repair services are covered after all:

[Network Performance Daily]: So could you give me a couple of examples as to what would be and what would not be covered under this law?

[Capt. RenEarl] Bowie: A basic example would be an individual like a computer repairman who is providing computer repair or support services for a customer; normally that is not a regulated activity. But when an individual is performing work involving the review of computer data for the purpose of investigating criminal or civil matters, then they could fall under the 1701.104, which is considered an investigation company.

[...]

NPD: What about a PC repairman who is being asked to check for viruses on a person's computer?

Bowie: That does not rise to that level either.

NPD: What if a parent brought in a computer that they owned, but which is primarily used by a son or daughter, and they wanted to find out, say, the browsing history?

Bowie: That's just considered normal computer repair or support service.

I should have known better than to give a journalist the benefit of the doubt.

Agreed, these days journalists are all about breaking a sensational story and getting headlines; the truth is secondary.

If they can misinterpret a statement or event they will if it gets readers or viewers.