ANALOGY QUOTE FOR FARMERDUDE
But let's get back to the five basic facts about obtaining and retaining a Driver's License;
- requires NO educational degree in driving to get the license
- requires NO working experience in driving just pass one or two simple tests
- requires NO learning experience in drving, if you are over 18
- requires NO training or certification in driving, if you are over 18
- requires NO knowledge of engine systems, operating systems, or applications…you just have to pass the limited drivers test and written test
It is apparent that you have no idea what the issue here is, as your analogy is not even remotely analogous.
farmerdude's (and many other people's) point remains intact. For your analogy to actually be applicable, you would need to be advocating that since people ride bicycles on streets, all bicycle riders MUST have a driver's license.
.
.
You might even find in the Georgia law that illegal investigation work experience hours cannot be used to qualify for the license. I am only saying this since CA law clearly has this spelled out in detail on what work related experience counts towards the license. Since these investigation license laws are so similar Georgia may be referring to that common rule.
Maybe you should investigate what the purpose, the original purpose, of the current Georgia PI law involves…..it involves the regulation of PI work, NOT data forensics. Hence as many have pointed out, and either you can't grasp, or simply ignore, in the state of Georgia to become a PI requires NO experience or knowledge of data forensics. It isn't even considered part of the job description. Period.
Attempts to extend a law to cover people that the law was never intended to cover, stinks of desperation on the part of a group who see their livelihood slowly slipping away. So instead of improving their own skills to compete in the market place, they are seeking to do two things 1) apply the law governing THEIR behavior to include anyone they see as competition; and 2) change the law to make the penalty more severe.
I find it amusing that you are so concerned, (or should I say obsessed?), with excluding the testimony of CF experts who are unlicensed PI's, as opposed to actually doing better work than them and beating them in Court. Maybe it can be summed up this way…
Most CF experts' motto "Let me do the best job I possibly can…."
hitechpi's motto "Let me try to disqualify you because I don't trust my own work…"
I asked after I saw that, and the claim was that you had to be "In-House" with only one company to qualify. Not a service company that sells to clients. I asked about mine specificly and was told it does not qualify even though I have probably a harder job and experience than most that work inside a single company.
That is a big issue, because if they state that working for companies that sell to clients then that is bogus becuase all of them do. They told me if I had worked for just one lawyer for 2 years and not sold my services I would qualify but that compaines like mine and Deloitte did not qualify becuase we sell those services to clients. So if I was working for a single lawyer how is that different. They sell thier services to clients. So as you can see this is a completely bogus interpretation and could not possibly stand up in court.
My other issue is that once the item becomes the law, even the PI Board can not make a choice about what the interpretation is, they have no more right to state what a law means any more than you or I do. Only the State Attorney General can do that, or a case on record.
A 4 year "computer" degree also counts.
HITECHPI -
Driver's license analogy? Doesn't fit. Stick with data forensics and PI licensing. That's simple enough, real enough, and what this topic is about. Why branch into other areas of discussion?
Licensing is the law … but an appropriate license is what I'm speaking about. A PI license is not an appropriate license for anyone who acquires and analyzes digital data, and then gives deposition and testimony if need be, on this work.
Now, you may be asking "Why does farmerdude insist that a PI license isn't the appropriate license to regulate data forensic practitioners? I mean, clearly he must be a moron, or a convict, or just so darn stupid he's beyond help. Otherwise he'd get his PI license and become a data forensics expert like the rest of us!"
Why is not a PI license the appropriate license for someone working as a data forensics practitioner?
Simply put, a PI license guarantees nothing with respect to Data Forensics. No knowledge, no education, no experience, nor any background in data forensics is required to obtain and retain a PI license.
Let me repeat, for all the PIs who insist their license permits them to hang their shingle on data forensics, and that all non-Pi licensed practitioners working in data forensics are flakes A PI license guarantees N O T H I N G with respect to data forensics. The PI may have no working experience in data forensics, no knowledge of file systems, operating systems, etc, and no education or certifications and training in data forensics. They do, however, have a PI license.
Also, I'm not dreaming … with respect to speaking up, getting together, and working together. In fact, in Georgia, HB1259 stands a very good chance of NOT getting signed this July. Because us dreamers have spoke out, worked together, and continue to work together to prevent this from being signed. Come to the Atlanta HTCIA meeting next week for more discussion. This is just starting to get good.
Let's continue, HITECHPI…
"The loudest complainers are those who can't qualify for the simple state licensing that is required. I hope the no-license fight is NOT being done to hide the discovery of criminal histories from the licensing process."
That is the purest form of bull sh*t I've seen in a long time. Intelligent people who respect their discipline simply realize a PI license guarentees nothing about one's competency as a forensic practitioner. THAT is the issue. So why roll over and take it just because it's the easier road to follow?
Do any other forensic practitioners require a PI license to prove worthiness, or to provide deposition and testimony? No. Not a PI license. Why not, you ask? Well, it wouldn't fit! Blood splatter analysis, ballistics, etc. Nope, no PI license required. But hey, we're talking about forensics, so why not? Hmm…
While I may be qualified to apply for my PI license I have no desire to do so, because my belief professionally is that the license doesn't fit the job duties and responsibilities. And my personal belief is that the PI profession as a whole is motivated by greed and working to capitalize on legislation and ignorance. As well as the historical inability of the data forensics community to work together for a common cause. ) States aren't going to say 'no' to this, because it means more income to the state.
"If one committed to this field without EVER thinking about the professional licensing requirements then you are not as smart as you say you are, and "ignorance of the law is no exception!"
I am committed, and I have been. For a number of years now. I think a simple GOOGLE will reveal that. I also believe I have some level of competency, experience, and knowledge that would allow me to assist in casework. I also know that because I do not have my PI license doesn't preclude me from working in this industry, in Georgia or any other state or country. My experience and knowledge is what counts, as do my integrity and work ethic.
"I hope that most folks addressing this issue are keeping the client's rights in mind here. They pay the bills and are entitled by law to a good faith, honest, moral, ethical, and legal computer forensics investigations.
Absolutely. Provide them with the best skill and experience they can retain. Not a PI license that has nothing to do with data forensics. A PI can work in forensics, but after getting that PI license they have to learn forensics (or before, either way). But it's too easy to see that a PI license guarantees nothing about data forensics.
EARN,
"What's the problem if you have the experience?"
The problem is the PI license does nothing to address what's required to be a competent, responsible forensic practitioner. No knowledge, no experience, no education, no certifications, etc. Nothing. So why not say you need a CPA, a J.D., a M.D., etc.? They're all licenses, degrees, etc. required by states to practice.
I'm curious as to why the PI license is the one anyone would think most fitting for data forensics?!?!
I can't believe we're still having this discussion. Isn't it really black and white? A PI can do data forensics, but doesn't have to. And the mere fact of having a PI license doesn't qualify one as a forensic practitioner. A forensic practitioner can do data forensics work, and if they do PI work, then they need a PI license. But the mere fact that they acquire and analyze data and report on their findings doesn't require a PI license.
regards,
farmerdude
On Monday, At Kennesaw College, there is an HTCIA meeting. I Understand the whole world is invited, member or not. Everyone that cares that can should really be there. There will be people from Deloitte, Suntrust, AT&T, etc….
http//
The president of the board of Private Investigators and the Sponser of the bill will be on location speaking on this topic.
Speakers Calvin Hill, Representative who sponsored the bill, and
John Villanes, Chairman, Georgia Board of Private Detectives
May 2006
Date May 8, 2006
Time 1000am
Location Room 300
Thomas - farmerdude - it would be nice to see you there as well as anyone that cares at all about this topic. REALLY if you care - make arrangements to be there. It does matter and I think we can all make a difference even if it means banding together.
Scott Moulton
Phone 770-926-5588
scott@forensicstrategy.com
First off, I do NOT have a PI license. My states do not have Computer Forensics Licenses either. If there were "Computer Forensic" licenses in any of the states I work in, I would love to get one. It’s great for marketing and separating yourself from the rest.
I came back from a forensic investigation. The PI I worked with has been destroying evidence on every case he has worked with for the past 10 years because he doesn't know the first thing about Computer Forensics. "Write blocker, what's that? … I've never heard of EnCase… " It seems that most rural area Law Enforcement are the same way.
So, I'm supposed to believe that the magical powers of PI will endow me with the newfound ability to have hard facts held up in court more then tampered evidence? Wow. I go through 500+ hours of specialized training (Forensic/Hacking/CI/Networking/Programming) a year to keep up to par. I don't know of a PI that can even come close. As far as requiring a PI license, that's idiotic at best. A CF License, sure. Not a PI. If I'm not qualified enough, show me someone who is. It wont be a PI, that is for sure.
So how did the meeting go? I heard the bill was shot down
HB1259 Georgia Law Vetoed That Makes Computer Forensics and some Security Fields Illegal without a PI License.
On Friday the bill was Vetoed. I would like to thank everyone that spent time on this effort. It was a team effort to get this bad legislation vetoed and I personally appreciate every ones messages and info with regards to this effort as well as the phone calls and letters to the governors office. I especially want to thank Tom Cross of ISS for recognizing that Computer Security is greatly affected as well by this law and applying extra effort to get this law vetoed. Thank you all.
See here http//
House Bill 1259 – The existing definition of “private detective business,†continued in this bill, in conjunction with the applicable exemptions in the law, fails to exclude from the private investigator licensing requirement many professions that collect information or may be called as expert witnesses in court proceedings. To expand the penalty from a misdemeanour to a felony without revision of the existing definitions in the law could result in unintended consequences; I therefore VETO HB1259.
Disclaimer These items are only my expressed opinion and are not meant to be accepted as fact, only opinions.
Now on to the new issues.
Meeting info
May 2006
Date May 8, 2006
Time 1000am
Location Room 300
Speakers Calvin Hill, Representative who sponsored the bill, and
John Villanes, Chairman, Georgia Board of Private Detectives
The meeting was started by stating that none of the people in the room were affected by this new law and that we are not PI's. But that seemed to change within a few minutes to all of us being affected and that it does apply to us.
It seemed apparent from the meeting yesterday they intend to push this PI bill though again. Many of the items in the PI bill are good for other reasons. Just not for anyone that practices any kind of "investigation" that is we did not consider a PI. Very graciously John Villines and Calvin Hill agreed to work with a committee from "our community" to get the correct verbiage in the bill with regards to our industry. Their point seemed to be that the PI bill was going to include us and that we would all somehow still have to be PI's but kind of be on our own terms if we help with the verbiage. Further questioning did not seem to clarify this. It seems that adding computer components to the PI exams was considered a "specialty" and was opposed when suggested to John C. Villines and Calvin Hill. It seemed clear that the qualifications for what it takes to become a PI were going to stay in place with regards to testing, training and educational hours. They stated that items for new laws need to be complete around the September time frame so that they can be submitted in February for new laws to be considered and that they were going to go ahead with this and submit it again. Our choice was to work with them on the wording.
It was also very apparent from statements made that under the current law that the misdemeanour still stands no offers any way to indemnify anyone during this time period that these issues need to be worked out and the law rewritten. They did claim that it was very unlikely anyone would be sought out for this issue being that it is a misdemeanour.
When it was suggested that we could create our own Professional Licensing board, it was pointed out to us that it would probably never happen. It was suggested by, I believe Calvin Hill, that we pick a board we fit best under and work with that board to get established and regulated under that board, and that it was unlikely with the current political system we have that we would be successful in setting up our own board.
RESEARCH ON "INVESTIGATOR"
The word "Investigator or investigation" seems to be a very big issue with PI's. Calling anything Forensic Investigation or a Computer Forensic Investigation are words that are subject to scrutiny as if Private Investigators as if PI's own the word investigate.
As matter of fact, the LAW itself does not call them Investigators at all, it calls them "Private Detective and Security Agencies." http//
investigator n 1 a scientist who devotes himself to doing research [syn research worker, researcher] 2 someone who investigates 3 a police officer who investigates crimes [syn detective, tec, police detective].
So, I guess it is even wrong to call them PI's (Private Investigators.) They should be referred to as PD's (Private Detectives.) Even when they are issued their licenses their numbers are issued as PD license numbers. It seems that computer forensics is more of a science than private detective work. It appears they are stealing our term, not us stealing theirs.
Maybe I am wrong, can anyone point me at law in Georgia that declares that they are actually called PI's legally and that we can not use that word?
Current Issues
1 Misdemeanour Law still on books and we could be charged.
2 Investigate - the word and its clarification
3 This law will be submitted again and will again require us to be PI's.
4 How do we create our own board.
5 If this is the current status and we create something, how do we apply it to every state so that we are not limited to our own state to work without getting a PI license in every state?
We need a direction. Ideas? Who wants to ramp this up? Any thoughts on how to make real progress on this issue and not just sit around talking about it?
Posted at http//
Regards,
Scott Moulton, CCFS / Certified Forensic Specialist
Forensic Strategy Services, LLC.
601B Industrial Court, Woodstock Ga 30189
Web http//
E-mail Scott@ForensicStrategy.com
Telephone 770-926-5588
Facsimile 770-926-7089
Thanks for the report, Scott. Many of us are following this issue very closely.
I have three comments/opinions
1. It is seeming like there will need to be a legislation change for each state. What can we do to clarify exemption on a national level?
2. Is operating under the direction of an agency/person who is exempt considered to be acceptable (i.e. attorney is doing investigation and contracting our services)?
3. With regard to your issue with the term "Private Investigator" not being defined in Georgia Law, I wanted to offer a few definitions in Florida Law.
The following was taken from
(15) "Private investigative agency" means any person who, for consideration, advertises as providing or is engaged in the business of furnishing private investigations.
(16) "Private investigator" means any individual who, for consideration, advertises as providing or performs private investigation. This does not include an informant who, on a one-time or limited basis, as a result of a unique expertise, ability, vocation, or special access and who, under the direction and control of a Class "C" licensee or a Class "MA" licensee, provides information or services that would otherwise be included in the definition of private investigation.
(17) "Private investigation" means the investigation by a person or persons for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following matters
(a) Crime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States, when operating under express written authority of the governmental official responsible for authorizing such investigation.
(b) The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation, or character of any society, person, or group of persons.
© The credibility of witnesses or other persons.
(d) The whereabouts of missing persons, owners of unclaimed property or escheated property, or heirs to estates.
(e) The location or recovery of lost or stolen property.
(f) The causes and origin of, or responsibility for, fires, libels, slanders, losses, accidents, damage, or injuries to real or personal property.
(g) The business of securing evidence to be used before investigating committees or boards of award or arbitration or in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefor.