I currently reside in NJ, as a computer forensic examiner and a computer hacking forensic investigator. I have been doing my best to keep up with the laws in this country as it referes to law HB1529. Which in summary reaads that certain states are now requiring forensic Examiners to also be Private Investigators.
Here in NJ we do not (as of this writing) as it is still pending. Does your state require you be a Private Investigator as well and if so what are your thoughts on this topic and what steps have you taken since this law was passed in your state? Any feedback would be appreciated.
Requiring CF examiners to have a PI license is like requiring avionics engineers to have a pilot's license. Thankfully TN has an exemption for CF experts who only work for lawyers. There's been plenty of discussion previously on this topic.
Hint most people insisting you should need a PI license for CF have a PI license and allowing non-licensed CF examiners might create competition in their marketplace.
Also, read the American Bar Association's writings on this topic, and why they feel that PI licensing CF examiners is bad for justice.
To be clear, if you don't exclusively do CF examinations or ED and do regular PI work as well, I'm all for requiring the licensing. I'd support licensing CF specifically, so long as it's entirely based upon CF competencies, although courts have plenty of ways of vetting CF examiners without a license.
Also, by a small margin, the legislative trend in the US is away from licensing CF as PI.
Might want to check out and.or get involved with the The Consortium of Digital Forensic Specialists (CDFS). Part of the early planning initiatives of this group was to address the issues of State Licensing
(http//
The group is really gaining momentum and if you feel that the laws are unfair this might be a resource for you to become involved with to contribute to a professional community that has the power to self regulate.
6 parts, from 2009. I feel sorry for you peeps "over there".
Appreciate the input as well as the links. What a mess basically sums up the issue. NJ is still pending but I have no doubt they will follow the majority. Just doesn't add up for me, how can a PI with no computer experience be able to testify in court, yet a CCFE isn't qualified?
NJ is still pending but I have no doubt they will follow the majority. Just doesn't add up for me, how can a PI with no computer experience be able to testify in court, yet a CCFE isn't qualified?
If it is still pending, why not write a letter explaining the whole mess to the legislators? They are probably being served some BS about PI-licensing from some corporation that want to make a quick buck.
jbarbieri, I've been in the process of building a site that summarizes all the existing requirements in each state. You can find the site here.
I've been able to compile information about all the states, but it's possible some of the states have updated or passed new legislation since we went live. I'd also love to have input from anyone else if you find any issues with your particular state. It's definitely a work in progress!
I'd second the comment on joining with the The Consortium of Digital Forensic Specialists (CDFS) to help determine and direct the process of licensing and requirements.
Vastidious, your Tennessee is slightly off. You need a PI license unless you are
a) in-house; or
b) working on retainer for an attorney
If you're neither of the above and you do DF for a 3rd party, you're arguably in breach of TCA 62-26. There are other exceptions but you're not likely to be a DF professional and fit into them. See the exceptions in 62-26-223.
http//
Most of the DF people in TN only work for attorneys (or are in-house).
I'll get that adjusted. Thanks much! I've mostly been relying on the information I could scrounge up, which is hard to come by.
Have you looked at