Consider this view that kind of summarizes the licensing issue
I will try to keep this as humorous as possible to defuse some of the passions regarding the issue of states regulating or not regulating the computer forensics examiner.
Let's imagine two identically qualified computer forensics investigators in the State of Delaware.
lol One is fully licensed by the state lol
( One is not licensed at all (
But they both have impeccable resumes. And let's give the unlicensed computer forensics investigator the edge and make him BETTER LOOKING with a BETTER CHOICE OF TIES than the licensed one.
Who does the client pick? Who does the attorney pick? And what if the attorney or client are fully briefed on this licensing issue…..? (any ideas on who would be briefing them? twisted twisted )
Who gets the job?……it's an easy decision since clients and attorneys WANT a prescreened licensed computer forensics investigator, licensed by the state, who will not have to weather any legal storms about hunting for computer evidence without a license. The client and attorney know up-front that the licensed person has a clear criminal record with fingerprints and photos on file. They know that state law requires honest and good faith dealings, with even some code-based privacy rules to keep and maintain client secrets. They can ask for government certified Photo ID and fictitious business license cards and documents. They know IRS/TAX issues will not be a problem, since that is regulated too. In addition there are some minimum competency requirements and tests that were met in addtion to the computer forensics qualifications. Client and attorney know that a professional with a state license cannot shield his personal liability with incorportion or an LLC. License violations are always a "cause of action" to protect the client and attorney. There just are no negatives for the client and attorney to hire the licensed professional
It's a safer, common sense "legal" decision to hire the licensed professional. If you want to increase your computer forensics marketability and compete with the licensed professional then try to get licensed. The computer forensics licensed professional is growing in numbers because it makes good business sense to have that license to compete successfully in this growing field of computer forensics wizards and sharks. wink wink
Consider this view that kind of summarizes the licensing issue
I will try to keep this as humorous as possible to defuse some of the passions regarding the issue of states regulating or not regulating the computer forensics examiner.
Let's imagine two identically qualified computer forensics investigators in the State of Delaware.
lol One is fully licensed by the state lol
( One is not licensed at all (
But they both have impeccable resumes. And let's give the unlicensed computer forensics investigator the edge and make him BETTER LOOKING with a BETTER CHOICE OF TIES than the licensed one.
Who does the client pick? Who does the attorney pick? And what if the attorney or client are fully briefed on this licensing issue…..? (any ideas on who would be briefing them? twisted twisted )
Who gets the job?……it's an easy decision since clients and attorneys WANT a prescreened licensed computer forensics investigator, licensed by the state, who will not have to weather any legal storms about hunting for computer evidence without a license. The client and attorney know up-front that the licensed person has a clear criminal record with fingerprints and photos on file. They know that state law requires honest and good faith dealings, with even some code-based privacy rules to keep and maintain client secrets. They can ask for government certified Photo ID and fictitious business license cards and documents. They know IRS/TAX issues will not be a problem, since that is regulated too. In addition there are some minimum competency requirements and tests that were met in addtion to the computer forensics qualifications. Client and attorney know that a professional with a state license cannot shield his personal liability with incorportion or an LLC. License violations are always a "cause of action" to protect the client and attorney. There just are no negatives for the client and attorney to hire the licensed professional
It's a safer, common sense "legal" decision to hire the licensed professional. If you want to increase your computer forensics marketability and compete with the licensed professional then try to get licensed. The computer forensics licensed professional is growing in numbers because it makes good business sense to have that license to compete successfully in this growing field of computer forensics wizards and sharks. wink wink
What you describe is a legal process called "Rent Seeking." You all should read this http//
Consider this view that kind of summarizes the licensing issue
Who does the client pick? Who does the attorney pick? And what if the attorney or client are fully briefed on this licensing issue…..? (any ideas on who would be briefing them? twisted twisted )
Who gets the job?……it's an easy decision since clients and attorneys WANT a prescreened licensed computer forensics investigator, licensed by the state
In keeping this light hearted, let me say first that most attorneys and corporate clients don't care whether a CE is licensed by the state as long as they know what they are doing. It is pure speculation, and a bit of creative writing to state otherwise. In fact, there are goodly numbers of attorneys and corporate entities that dislike state interference on most levels. I think the Nanny State license would reduce the number of contracts you'd win, compared to a self policed certification such as CCE.
Look at the MCSE certification. Its a business standard and is widely respected by both corporate and government entities. Government has absolutely no say in the MCSE standard or general IT certifications, and it ought to stay that way.
I wish you were right……
Have you checked the state licensing requirements for electronic repair foks and computer technicians who put out their shingles as private consultants going into person's homes and businesses to fix, sell, repair, and maintain computers? Geez, even the TV repairman and barber need to be licensed and a bunch more folks too….You are right, the government has no say in those private sector certifications like the MSCE, but they sure have a say on licensing. Remember, the goal, theme, legislative intents, and mission statements of all of the state licensing laws are to protect the consumer…..not you, since they want you regulated and the laws are on the books now.
What makes the unlicensed computer forensics investigator more important than the licensed contractor, a licensed plumber, licensed/sworn police detective, and the others?
Have you heard about the Honolulu PD case who tried to use civilian, unlicensed computer forensics investigators?
.
.
Have you checked the state licensing requirements for electronic repair foks and computer technicians who put out their shingles as private consultants going into person's homes and businesses to fix, sell, repair, and maintain computers? Geez, even the TV repairman and barber need to be licensed and a bunch more folks too….
This varies to a HUGE degree depending on what state you live in. Here in NH Non of those people you mentioned need a government license. Well, maybe a barber does. I suspect that more densely populated/urban states interfere with private enterprise the most.
You are right, the government has no say in those private sector certifications like the MSCE, but they sure have a say on licensing.
Again, that depends on where you live. Entrepreneurs in many states carry on just fine without Government interference. And the consumer is served just as well, and perhaps better, than in Nanny States.
Remember, the goal, theme, legislative intents, and mission statements of all of the state licensing laws are to protect the consumer…..
I disagree. The theme of government in this day and age, is perpetuation of government. This is especially true in liberal areas where the philosophy of elected officials is that civilians are incompetent and must be taken care of lest they hurt themselves.
What makes the unlicensed computer forensics investigator more important than the licensed contractor, a licensed plumber, licensed/sworn police detective, and the others?
Lets stick to the topic of Computer Forensics here. Adding other professions detracts from our focus on this issue. We can certainly address plumbers at some point if you'd like.
What makes an unlicensed CF better? Freedom from bureaucratic interference makes the less regulated CF more professional. There are no crutches to fall back on. A bad CF is an unemployed CF whereas a mediocre CF, but on who barely fits the government mandated license requirements, stays in the game.
Have you heard about the Honolulu PD case who tried to use civilian, unlicensed computer forensics investigators?
No. Do tell. Provide links to newspaper articles, etc.
For the Honolulu PD story contact
The Ashkelon Group [mailtotag@ashkelon.net]
He is a licensed computer forensics investigator for the State of Hawaii and he also is a licensed omputer forensics investigator's in CA, since his cases often overlap the two states.
He has some interesting stories about actual cases where the unlicensed computer forensics examiner in his state gets removed from cases, very similar to ones I have been inolved with in CA. It's a career damaging event for the unlicensed investigator in both states. We get one of two excuses "I didn't know" , or "I never needed one, since I have qualified as an expert witness." There is a standard response to both of these losing excuses when challenged by attorneys who know professional licensing law.
[quote="OldDawg In keeping this light hearted, let me say first that most attorneys and corporate clients don't care whether a CE is licensed by the state as long as they know what they are doing. [.quote]
You'll need to provide support in order to justify your opinion; bald assertions don't carry much weight with attorneys. As an attorney, I briefed all of my attorney friends on this issue, and they were VERY appreciative of my briefing. And ALL OF THEM are currently preparing motions to have opposing experts disqualified. In cases where they are using a non-licensed cf expert, they are trying to figure out a graceful way out of the situation without beeing challenged or slapped.
Attorneys respect licensing a great deal, largely in part because we see the harm inflicted on the public by those without a license to practice law.
Eric Van Buskirk, JD, MA, CISSP
That's it? Thats your Honolulu story?
With all due respect, it doesn't even make sense.
Please post this Honolulu story. With links.
And I'm sure it would help your case if you were able to use this story to point out how Government Licensing is needed for MCSE certification to be valid since I believe that is the current point of discussion.
Also, it would be really cool if you could rationalize how a single anecdotal story (e.g. Honolulu) was not inductive reasoning (e.g. "I saw a white duck, therefore all ducks are white")
I should probably clarify why I ask such pointed questions. I was a LEO investigator, a PI specializing in covert ops and also in the IT business for 20 years. I've seen lots of unverifiable claims throughout the years so I am perhaps just a bit cynical twisted I've seen countless government mandates that were inadequate, poorly researched, poorly written, destructive and costly for no reason. It takes a strong argument and lots of those irritating facts to change my mind. This could explain why I am less than impressed by your reply to our request for information.
I am especially cynical when I hear someone say, "Hello. I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".
Enlighten us, please.
You sure want a binder full of free material from a simple forum user…..
What do you mean "that's it?" on the Honolulu PD story. I gave you an eye witness State of Hawaii contact. Remember this is just a forum to exchange ideas. It's not a forum user's responsibility to give you a voluminous computer forensics licensing class with a "police type" report with handouts, with proofs, points, counterpoints, and evidence. Sounds like you want video, photos, recordings, legal briefs, and affidavits….anything else?
You have to do some of this research yourself. WE SURE DID! And it cost us alot of time and money as a group to get this information. Would you like to donate some cash to defer the costs of our time and efforts? I have alot of material from both public records and documented confidential case experiences. It will not be free of charge.
If you don't believe any of this….oh well. Do some independant research and confirm this computer forensics licensing issue…..that's what I do once I get forum ideas and tips. I don't bash the posting person. I think it is great that someone bravely comes into the forum and shares ideas. That's what makes a forum like this so fantastic…..a constructive debate cyber arena with the sharing of ideas, perspectives, tips, and tricks.
Congratulations to the folks that run this!!!!