Part of the issue in MI was LEO moonlighting in CF. Caused a wee bit of an issue so the legislature came up with their rather draconian measures.
With that kind of logic the next thing that they'll be doing is requiring a PI license for bouncers.
Their turf?? ?
Not sure I see the crossover in turf. I don't want to shadow/follow/tail a subject and most all of the PIs I know don't want to start examining computers.
Part of the issue in MI was LEO moonlighting in CF. Caused a wee bit of an issue so the legislature came up with their rather draconian measures.
How do you know this? I have not read anything about LEOs working as computer forensics. Could you post some links on this or where that information came from.
Thanks
Could you post some links on this or where that information came from.
No. It is in the past.
You have a state police det who does CF work on the side.
Google is your friend.
Their turf?? ?
Not sure I see the crossover in turf. I don't want to shadow/follow/tail a subject and most all of the PIs I know don't want to start examining computers.
Part of the issue in MI was LEO moonlighting in CF. Caused a wee bit of an issue so the legislature came up with their rather draconian measures.
How do you know this? I have not read anything about LEOs working as computer forensics. Could you post some links on this or where that information came from.
Thanks
You have a state police det who does CF work on the side.
Why is this a problem? Assuming of course he doesn't take cases that would constitute a conflict of interests.
Reading the Michigan law it was pretty clear to me that was who they were going after. One way of dealing with the competition I suppose.
Also, presuming that the LEO does not exert undue pressure on legislators to pass restrictive laws to keep competition out, nothing.
Allegedly politicians get drunk/high, but let go by LEOs… Suddenly, it is in the best interest of that politician to "help regulate" the riff-raff out of FI field.
Of course this is all just conjecture… It never happens. wink
You have a state police det who does CF work on the side.
Why is this a problem? Assuming of course he doesn't take cases that would constitute a conflict of interests.
Reading the Michigan law it was pretty clear to me that was who they were going after. One way of dealing with the competition I suppose.
Also, presuming that the LEO does not exert undue pressure on legislators to pass restrictive laws to keep competition out, nothing.
Allegedly politicians get drunk/high, but let go by LEOs… Suddenly, it is in the best interest of that politician to "help regulate" the riff-raff out of FI field.
Of course this is all just conjecture… It never happens. wink
Are you saying that's what happened? Seems like a lot of talking around the point. What's the big secret. Can someone just share that with the rest of us. I don't follow Michigan news on a normal basis.
Greetings,
I cannot speak to MI, but I do know that it is very difficult though not impossible to get a PI license in IL unless you are ex-LE. And PI licenses are required to do computer forensics in IL.
-David
David, are they not even accepting your CA PI license as acceptable experience?
I am going to make an argument that state PI licensing is both damaging to practitioners in the state, and irrelevant.
First, states can regulate many things, but they can't regulate activities which occur outside state borders. Ship a computer (or a disk) to my firm in Pennsylvania and I do an analysis on it which is perfectly legal in PA. What matters is not my analysis, but the conclusions that I draw from that. Thus, my testimony is considered expert testimony not fact testimony. This is different than what most PI's testify to, namely, most PI testimony is as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.
As an expert witness, are my opinions admissible in court? In general, yes they are. The Daubert standard is a two pronged standard Is the evidence relevant to the issue at hand and is the process by which that evidence was obtained accepted as a standard practice in the community.
While many states aren't obliged to follow Daubert, most do. Questions about my credentials to render my opinions in that state can only be applied to one of the two prongs.
Insofar as most state licensing requirements are concerned, there exists no widely accepted standard for the credentialling of digital forensic examiners and no state laws regulating the practice of digital forensics require any kind of certification in the actual practice of digital forensics. So, in failing to establish a standard for the qualification of an examiner as an expert in digital forensics, most state stautues render themselves, irrelevant, insofar as expert testimony is concerned.
Does not having a PI license in a state prevent me from qualifying under Daubert? No, because nothing in the state licensing laws pertain to the qualifications necessary to establish me as an expert.
In other words, state laws can regulate practice in that state, but not practice in other states and not opinions rendered by experts qualified in other jurisdictions.
So who is harmed? Basically those qualified individuals who want to offer their services to businesses located in the state in which they live/work when that state has a requirement that a digital forensic examiner be a licensed PI. The laws can't prevent practitioners in other states from testifying as experts and they can prevent the clients from sending their systems/media out of state for expert evaluation.
It also harms the businesses in those states who might be able to rely on the expertise of a local, and less expensive, expert who cannot qualify to practice under state law.