Montana's PI statute could be construed to cover computer forensics. As I do some work on the side, I approached the licensing board for a formal determination. At its last meeting, the board discussed my arguments and heard my oral comments. The board unanimously agreed that the PI licensing scheme did not apply to computer forensics, or virtually any forensic science for that matter. For example, if I need a license, so do private DNA labs.
The board asked its counsel to draft amendments to the statutes to exclude forensic practitioners. BTW, there was no opposition from any of the licensed PIs at the meeting. I also told the board that, if it believes that computer forensics requires regulation, and it very well may, I would work with the agency to draft legislation. Our legislature convenes in January, and I'll follow the progress and try to report back.
Maybe it is time to consider relocating. wink
Move to Montanna? Would you really want to be opposite Jimmy W in any case? The man knows everything!
Keep it up Jimmy.
BTW BitHead, have you spoken with anybody involved with licensing of PI's in Indiana? I have not, but I have talked with a couple attorneys who say that it is definitely a gray area right now. I like Jimmy's approach, maybe some of us in Indiana should approach for a clarification (and lobby for exclusion)
Stay Safe,
Matt
Move to Montanna? Would you really want to be opposite Jimmy W in any case?
Who said anything about opposing him?
have you spoken with anybody involved with licensing of PI's in Indiana?
No I have not. However one advantage to being licensed is the reciprocity it provides in some of the other surrounding states.
Does this mean that any business must have someone with a PI license in order to investigate intrusions on their own?
Do I have to be a PI in order to investigate my honeypot?
Does this mean that any business must have someone with a PI license in order to investigate intrusions on their own?
Internal company work is excluded. Working as a consultant/contractor in some states requires a PI license.
Do I have to be a PI in order to investigate my honeypot?
No. And academic research also seems to be excluded. However I read on another forum there can be some legal issues involved with entrapment based on using honeypots.
I have long suspected that the object of many of these licensing initiatives is to reduce competition for private investigators specifically from L.E. examiners who want to operate a part time practice. This Michigan statute is the most blatant example I've seen.
First of all it goes without saying that the use of agency property for personal profit is wrong. That is an ethics issue for the agency to address if it happens.
They have placed a hurdle in front of the law enforcement examiner that is probably insurmountable in most cases and qualifications have nothing to do with it. As I see it the L.E. examiner has two additional burdens to licensure that other applicants do not.
1. In order to get licensed the L.E. examiner must get permission from their employer. While this is a good practice, and already a part of most agency policy, is it really an issue for the licensing authority to be concerned with?
2. The agency must provide policy to the licensing authority. Now there is a requirement placed on a third party to create and provide policy. Most agencies are very hesitant about releasing policy. Then there is this thing requiring a policy statement that "off-duty employment as a professional investigator is not considered in conflict with employment as a law enforcement officer". That's a huge limb for an agency to step out on because a lot of what a private investigator does is in conflict with one's duty as a police officer. It's as if the law is suggesting to police agencies why they should not allow their employees to apply.
I think that a case could be made for restraint of trade. The purpose of licensing should not be to exclude qualified candidates. You don't have to pull the curtains back very far to see that this law does just that.
Does this mean that any business must have someone with a PI license in order to investigate intrusions on their own?
Internal company work is excluded. Working as a consultant/contractor in some states requires a PI license.
Do I have to be a PI in order to investigate my honeypot?
No. And academic research also seems to be excluded. However I read on another forum there can be some legal issues involved with entrapment based on using honeypots.
Well that's a relief for me, thanks )
Yeah, I'm sort of familiar with the more common legal issues with honeypots, such as entrapment. From what I've heard it's enticement instead of entrapment, and entrapment only applies to law enforcement…
I think that a case could be made for restraint of trade.
This is especially true in Michigan and Illinois where you in essence need a resident as an employee and a physical address in the state.
Azrael,
You are correct, you would need to be licensed in each state. There is no federally recognized authority right now. This is how most things bubble up..once it is law in California and Texas it soon goes to the federal level. D
A point has been made to me that it is the state in which the law suit was initiated that requires the License. So…if you provided services out of Idaho which may not require a PI license, but the suit was filed in Texas which does, you would have to go get a license in Texas to testify as resident expert. However if you were out of Idaho and collected data from Texas for a case in Idaho the PI license requirement in Texas does not apply. ALWAYS ask the attorney you are working for! It's not worth your time or reputation if you can't assure quality.
I work for corporate services, not for private sector. So this puts a new spin on this worry bead. So far, as long as you are not hanging out your shingle to the public, these laws do not apply. Arguments are occuring and I am sure it is only a matter of time.
Interesting arguments are also occuring on the difference between electronic discovery support and computer forensics. In a company it is logical the same team performs this function. The same depth of knowledge is not however required for eDiscovery support as for internal investigation e.g. incident response.