PI licensing

Greetings,

Please note that I started by saying I support testing and certification for CFs specifically so I've no issue with your first two paragraphs..

It requires 3 years and 6,000 hours of in service work in California to get a PI license. That's pretty tough. I did it and will now sit for my own license. That's why I gave the three year number out. And once I have those three years in, I can use that experience in many other states.

You'd not all of a sudden be out of a job.
1) You'd see it coming down the pike and do something about it before it passed into law.
2) You'd do internal work, which isn't covered.
3) You'd partner with someone who has a PI license, or hire a PI to work for you, and proceed on, at an advantage over those who didn't think ahead.

Anyone want a licensed PI with a computer forensics background as a partner for their business?

-David

…before I examine that computer, I am given permission to do so through either a court order or the owner of the computer.

John J. Barbara makes a similar statement as part of his argument *against* PI licensing for CFEs (cf. Forensic Magazine article). But here's the rub Many times I am asked to examine a computer or mobile device by a suspicious spouse. The true *owner* is often unaware of my activity until s/he is handed divorce papers by a process-server. My work is so covert, the Subject usually never learns my name!

The very act of employing write-blocking techniques also renders my work "covert," albeit to serve a different goal (Preservation).

We've already discussed the interview process and various other duties that are truly "investigative" in nature.

The suggestion to have a dedicated licensing and regulatory organization for CFEs is noble. I doubt that anyone could get funding for such an undertaking in this economic climate. I believe CFE licensing has fallen under the PI licensing boards of many States, by default, because

1. We do perform investigations that may result in a Subject losing their job, being fined, imprisoned, divorced or any combination of the forgoing.

2. State governments can't afford -and probably don't want- to set up an agency to regulate a group of technologists whose work legislators don't fully understand. It appears enough like PI work for them to say "Get a PI license!"

-AWTLPI

…before I examine that computer, I am given permission to do so through either a court order or the owner of the computer.

John J. Barbara makes a similar statement as part of his argument *against* PI licensing for CFEs (cf. Forensic Magazine article). But here's the rub Many times I am asked to examine a computer or mobile device by a suspicious spouse. The true *owner* is often unaware of my activity until s/he is handed divorce papers by a process-server. My work is so covert, the Subject usually never learns my name!

I don't mean any disrespect and I don't do that kind of work and wouldn't but it appears to me that your example is actually a counter example. I would think that a covert action like this would violate the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy and, while (perhaps), not criminal, might possibly render the evidence inadmissible in a civil setting. The law is mixed on this (and state law may be even more restricted), but I would be hesitant to cross any line which had me examining property that I was not authorized by the owner or courts to examine.

In general, married couples give up some expectations of privacy but not all. If I put a password on my email account and don't tell my wife, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy for my e-mail in spite of the fact that we are married.

Thus, it seems to me that the covert work that you do as a licensed PI would cross a line that I would not as a qualified forensic examiner.

You'd not all of a sudden be out of a job.
1) You'd see it coming down the pike and do something about it before it passed into law.
2) You'd do internal work, which isn't covered.
3) You'd partner with someone who has a PI license, or hire a PI to work for you, and proceed on, at an advantage over those who didn't think ahead.

But why should I have to change my business for a change in law and addition of licensing that doesn't make sense? I give expert testimony in court like many other individuals do, except they don't need to be licensed or if they do, it is in a field that is completely relevant (and not just tangentially) to their field.

But why should I have to change my business for a change in law and addition of licensing that doesn't make sense? I give expert testimony in court like many other individuals do, except they don't need to be licensed or if they do, it is in a field that is completely relevant (and not just tangentially) to their field.

Greetings,

We change our businesses for changes in the law all the time. The business environment is constantly in flux. Some changes are barrier, some are an opportunity, and some can be either one depending on your perspective.

I agree, we should have our own area of licensing. However, that's not going to happen any time soon so I'm going to make the most of the cards dealt to me and get on with it.

-David

[quote="AWTLPI]
Many times I am asked to examine a computer or mobile device by a suspicious spouse. The true *owner* is often unaware of my activity until s/he is handed divorce papers by a process-server. My work is so covert, the Subject usually never learns my name!

That is different from our policy, and the policy of many other computer forensic examiners that I know. Our contract, signed by the client, specifically states that the client is representing that they have the right and authority to allow us to examine the electronic evidence. In the case of divorce matters, we inform the attorney working on the matter (we typically work with attorneys as well) that there may be some privacy issues to a jointly owned family computer and those issues are usually rectified through a divorce or other legal action. We will preserve evidence, but we won't analyze or search it until such time that the privacy issues are handled appropriately.

We've already discussed the interview process and various other duties that are truly "investigative" in nature.

Reporters interview and investigate, I am not aware of any licensing that they have to go through, much less PI licensing. Their reporting and investigating can get people fired, divorced and be investigated by law enforcement for potential criminal charges. My point is, I don't see how interviewing and investigating dictates that I be licensed as a PI.

The argument that we are getting lumped into the PI statute because states do not have the money or the desire to put us in a more appropriate licensing category does nothing to support the legitimacy for us to be licensed as PIs.

…before I examine that computer, I am given permission to do so through either a court order or the owner of the computer.

But here's the rub Many times I am asked to examine a computer or mobile device by a suspicious spouse. The true *owner* is often unaware of my activity until s/he is handed divorce papers by a process-server. My work is so covert, the Subject usually never learns my name!

<stuff deleted>

-AWTLPI

Are you certain that you didn't just admit to an ethical violation or an illegal act?

-David

…before I examine that computer, I am given permission to do so through either a court order or the owner of the computer.

But here's the rub Many times I am asked to examine a computer or mobile device by a suspicious spouse. The true *owner* is often unaware of my activity until s/he is handed divorce papers by a process-server. My work is so covert, the Subject usually never learns my name!

<stuff deleted>

-AWTLPI

Are you certain that you didn't just admit to an ethical violation or an illegal act?

-David

Nope. In my po' li'l State, if the computer is located in a common area of the home, it is considered "marital property" and, therefore, fair game. Now, if that same PC was used solely by one spouse in a home-based business and located behind a closed door of a room used solely for that business, I would *not* be able to access it on behalf of the suspicious mate.

Yes, the issue of "reasonable expectation of privacy" is another one of those 'your State may vary" topics. In some States, an investigator can legally place a keylogger on a PC for a spouse. In other States, such activity is a violation of privacy.

Here's one for y'all I was recently called in to consult on a divorce case by an attorney who wanted me to determine if one spouse accessed their mate's Gmail account from the home PC or did they install a keylogger to capture the messages. If the former, this would constitute a violation of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act (ECPA), aka "Federal Wiretap Law" and would make the snooping spouse liable for rather severe sanctions.

Ain't love grand?

-AWTLPI

2. State governments can't afford -and probably don't want- to set up an agency to regulate a group of technologists whose work legislators don't fully understand.

If they don't want to spend the time/money to license properly, then they shouldn't license at all.

I believe that the Tennessee model is perhaps a good example of how this should be done. In Tn, if I want to deal direct with the public, and do snooping on spouses and that kind of thing, I need to be a PI. However, I work exclusively under contract with lawyers to find evidence, and as such, I am not required to have a PI license. My client, the lawyer, is responsible for ensuring that all examinations I conduct are fully compliant with the relevant laws.

As an aside, I don't know of one forensic examiner who is not either a PI or LEO that is in favour of licensing as PIs. I do however know plenty of us who are in favour of proper, CFE specific licensing, so long at that licensing scheme is not used as a bar to interstate commerce. I'm against PI licensing of CFEs and against licensing that requires you to be resident in any given state to conduct examinations. Reciprocal license recognition schemes don't really work either, because not all states license, and as can be seen from PI license reciprocity, most states only recognise the licenses of maybe a half dozen other states each.

We sucessfully argued this week at the NC Senate to have the licensing for DFEs removed from the House Bill. NC will not be licensing Digital Forensics examiners at all.