Computer Forensics now have to be Private Investigators!!!

.

Nick Levay gave me permission to repost this comment.

Here is a possible direction..

The reason they have to be careful with the way they use the word Investigation is because is has different meanings in different spaces. All of them are taken very seriously.

For instance… Reporters investigate. They release their findings in the media, not present them to the courts. In this realm, it's taken seriously. For that reason, when you tell a reporter "that matter is under investigation" as opposed to "no comment", they respect it.

There is one space that we should put the laser beam on Research

There is room for an argument about Information Security Research and Prior Restraint

If we can present research in the public ream, we should be able to present it in court, unless it is not relevant to the court proceeding. Being forbidden to present research in public forum is not acceptable, unless it presents a direct threat to national security. In that case, it's a federal issue. Hence, this is a federal issue by default.

Nick Levay
- nick
nick@nicklevay.net

I hope that everyone visits the forensiclicensing.com site, no matter if you're a PI or not a PI. This issue affects anyone working within data forensics, at any stage of the process.

It seems at the current point in time each state is taking their own approach. Those working within this industry have the opportunity to work together and collectively come up with a NATIONAL STANDARD, so that one doesn't have to follow the whims of each and every state.

You have other national standards (such as the CPA) … now is the time to act if you believe you'd rather come up with your own standard instead of having someone hand it to you.

In Georgia, the private investigators feel it's up to them to decide how forensic practitioners should be licensed and work within the state. Oddly enough, they formed their own association and rules back in the day, no one formed it for them. Initially they said they never thought of data forensics. But after our meeting, they've indicated we should work with them and fall under their standards, association, and rules.

Folks, get involved. You may not think it affects you, but it does. And even if your state currently isn't doing something so dumb as requiring a PI license, it may be considering it now or in the future. And you can be sure there are many PIs in your state lobbying for just such a ruling.

Funny how those earlier in this thread said it couldn't be done - that we couldn't defeat HB1259 … and yet it was vetoed. Hmmm…

So, it can be done, and when you think of it, wouldn't a national standard be better than 50 individual standards?

regards,

farmerdude

I have created and Updated www.ForensicLicensing.com with a forum and structure. It is not perfect but it is a start. It is intended to help us here in Georgia, or where ever come together to have a place to post and work on content together. Hopefully it works out.

Give it a try and we will see.
www.ForensicLicensing.com

I have posted a few emails I recieved on California Issues here
http//tinyurl.com/op8gh

Most of you have been scammed by one of the posters in this thread.

This is what the poster stated
"He is a licensed computer forensics investigator for the State of Hawaii and he also is a licensed computer forensics investigator's in CA"

There are no such licenses.

Another member here, who appears to have fallen victim to the false statement, wrote "If there were "Computer Forensic" licenses in any of the states I work in, I would love to get one".

Sorry to shed bad news, but you'll have to wait for a legitimate license to become available, no matter how other claim to have one that does not exist.

I also called the Hawaii source himself and was told he only has a PI License, and what this member stated was false.

I also found this member has been posting everywhere on the internet forums to mislead people into thinking he too is a licensed computer forensics investigator.

Apparently he has upset some very good private investigators to the point of revealing the following.

Mark, I think you hit the point solid on this Kirk Stockham.

Here are some facts that I uncovered about Stockham

<hr>
1) Stockham does advertise himself as a State of California "Licensed Computer Forensics Private Investigator", which may be of some concern to the California Bureau of Licensing! It may be unlawful for Stockham to continue to advertise that his PI License is is that of a "Licensed Computer Forensics Private Investigator", when in fact the California Bureau of Licensing tells me there is no such designation and they encouraged me to file a complaint!.

Here is the proof
http//www.ewitness.com/srch/experts/witnesses/kirk/stockham.htm

If by chance Stockham changes his listing upon reading this post, then I have made a screen shot of the proof and Google retains a cache record of his filing.

<hr>
2) Stockham did not get his PI License until February 2004, well after he testified for the prosecution in the Scott Peterson Case in 2003 as an UNLICENSED computer forensics investigator working as a cop at the time.

Here is the proof
http//www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Prelim%20Transcripts/Prelim%20Kirk%20Stockham.htm

<hr>
3) If Stockham claims that cops who become Post-Certified are then "licensed", then a phone call to the State of California Post-Education department tells me this is blatantly UNTRUE.

Here's what the State has to say about their Post Program

Ken Kruger
Standards & Evaluation
State of California

What is POST?
http//www.post.ca.gov/about/

The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) was established by the Legislature in 1959 to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. The POST organization, with more than 130 staff members, functions under the direction of an Executive Director appointed by the Commission.

POST funding comes from the Peace Officers' Training Fund (POTF). The POTF receives monies from the State Penalty Assessment Fund, which in turn receives monies from penalty assessments on criminal and traffic fines. Therefore, the POST program is funded primarily by persons who violate the laws that peace officers are trained to enforce. No tax dollars are used to fund the POST program.

The POST program is voluntary and incentive-based. Participating agencies agree to abide by the standards established by POST. The more than 600 agencies in the POST program are eligible to receive the Commission's services and benefits, such as job-related assessment tools, research into improved officer selection standards, management counseling services, the development of new training courses, reimbursement for training, and quality leadership training programs. POST also awards professional certificates to recognize peace officer achievement and proficiency.

The POST Strategic Plan 2004, developed with extensive input from representatives of California law enforcement, aligns POST's activities and priorities with the needs and expectations of POST's clients and partners. The POST Strategic Plan 2004 - Goals and Objectives (doc) was adopted by the POST Commission on April 29, 2004. Prior POST Strategic Plans are archived in the POST library online catalog .

<hr>
4) If Stockham is claiming that cops are "licensed", that is also blatantly UNTRUE. Cops are government employees, not licensed! Who ever heard of a "licensed cop", unless it is a licensed private security cop!

<hr>
5) Stockham claimed in the trial, under oath, that he is certified by the State of California. But the state offers hundreds of classes to PRIVATE SCHOOLS for their Post Certifications, including CAMP SURVIVAL!

Here is the proof
http//www.post.ca.gov/catalog/html-C.asp

Likewise, FBI Special Agents also can be trained and post certified by their department as a CFI. However, they would not be referred to as a separate "licensed" special agent.

<hr>
6) Is Stockham's License #23914 a CFI License?
Answer No, it is a PI License

Here is the proof
http//www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=23914&P_LTE_ID=651

Licensee Name STOCKHAM COMPUTER FORENSICS AND INVESTIGATIONS
License Type Private Investigator
License Number 23914
License Status CLEAR Definition
Expiration Date February 29, 2008
Issue Date February 05, 2004
City MODESTO
County STANISLAUS
Actions No
Business Owners
STOCKHAM KIRK W

<hr>
7) What does Stockham do now??

It appears he is unemployed by any firm or law enforcement agency since he got his PI License in February 2004. There is no record of any other court expert testimonies since his early days in 2003 and 2004, and he spends much of his time these days on several web sites trying to shut down anyone in the country who is competing with him as a computer forensics investigator without a state PI License. (I personally know it takes a great deal of self control to focus on a case without carrying on an internet mission of slamming other professionals in the field).

It also appears he is doing nothing with his state PI License except to use it (perhaps unlawfully) as a "licensed computer forensic private investigator".

He also promotes his lecturing and selling his courses at his website www.hitechpi.net

Retired computer forensics investigator Kirk Stockham
who used to work for the Modesto Police Department,
now collects snapshots of phishing sites to show at
fraud-protection seminars.

(Sacramento Bee Newspaper)

<hr>
8) Stockham claims attorneys are VERY concerned, but he offers no names of any attorneys whatsoever.

Then again, the prosecuting attorney who called on Stockham to testify seemed "okay" with Stockham having no state PI License and no computer forensic investigators "license" back in the days when he was employed as a cop.

If you Google Stockham's first and last name you will find a public court transcript of his testimony.

Here is the proof
http//www.findlaci2003.us/witness-stockham.html

http//www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Prelim%20Transcripts/Prelim%20Kirk%20Stockham.htm

<hr>
9) What about Stockham's peer Expert Witnesses who are also Computer Forensics Investigators??

Answer They appear better qualified and unlicensed!

Here's the proof
http//www.ewitness.com/search.phtml?query=Computer+Forensics+Investigator&REGION_CODE=US%2CCA&submit.x=15&submit.y=12

<hr>

Summary of my view

No doubt that Stockham is qualified within his own expertise, and this forum (and IPIU) should honor him with the respect he deserves. After all, he has done something positive for the profession.

But somewhere after the time he began to branch out on his own - it appears his new mission is to slam his fellow peers into claiming they must possess a fictitious state license that does not exist. Why? Maybe because of the competition for clients, who knows.

But I will say this, that polls taken over the last twenty years show that ex-cops who become PI's have a very slim chance of becoming successful as a PI because of the years they disciplined themselves with a cop mentality. Only ten percent survive in the PI business as an ex-cop. They just cannot shake the cop-mentality. That's why I believe Stockham is barely surviving in this business.

But Stockham also needs to do his fair share of owning up to the same rules, oaths, code of ethics, and mission statement that all of us do here at this sponsored forum! I noticed that IPIU is silent on whether or not Stockham is even cooperating with IPIU in providing the proof they requested on the claims he has made. (I join the others here in already knowing that there is no proof for Stockham to provide IPIU, as what he claims is a fictitious license. Too bad. Stockham had such great promise, and I would have certainly recommended him before this mess he brought on himself).

The jury is still out and will remain out. But I vote that IPIU move this ridiculous topic to the Personal Opinions Forums because it has no place in the Licensing Forum as a promotion for a license that does not exists.

Thank you for the info. As I have always thought, it all seemed very "suspect." Thank you for posting the info.

Great information. What could legally happen to him now that there is documentation showing his falsified statements?

If there were a CFPI in any of the states I worked, I would be more then happy to get one.

P.S.
I saw the false title, but now the Expert Witness title for him has been altered - "Kirk Stockham Specialist, Expert Witness and Forensic Consultant.
Licensed Private Investigator #23914, court qualified, retired law enforcement,Computer Forensics"

http//www.ewitness.com/prof/kirk-stockham-expert-witness/12716.htm

What could legally happen to him now that there is documentation showing his falsified statements?

Kirk Stockham's California PI License could be revoked! It starts with complaints to the Bureau of Licensing in California, with attachment of the proof that shows both his intent, his statements, and the cache archived web pages that he cannot delete.

I saw the false title, but now the Expert Witness title for him has been altered - "Kirk Stockham Specialist, Expert Witness and Forensic Consultant.
Licensed Private Investigator #23914, court qualified, retired law enforcement,Computer Forensics"

Good for Kirk Stockham! At least he reads what other professionals are suggesting and he has made the first effort in redeeming his character.

In the meantime he CANNOT delete the misleading and fraudulent evidence.

Here is an archived copy
http//64.233.167.104/search?q=cachePEOp6TMjFd8Jwww.ewitness.com/srch/kirk-stockham-experts-witnesses.htm+%22Kirk+Stockham%22+%2B+expert&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

And, many people have already saved a screen shot of the evidence.

Any updates on this "hitechpi" character?