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.
Thankfully the joke repeated in the play 1776 "North Carolina defers to South Carolina" is just that.
IMHO the examiners who still provide good quality work will have no problems. I am surprised to not see a post about someone working directly for an attorney. Here in Indiana you can work directly for an attorney in an investigation and not be required to have a PI license.
I had a PI license 20 years ago and several "AE" or authorized employee cards when I was working for other agencies. I think that most people who keep good records will be able to get a PI license if they have to. Also coming from a surety background I know the bonds are not that hard to get so a 10k bond should be easy if you have all your ducks in a row.
With a lot of states jumping on the bandwagon with legislation requiring computer forensics evidence to be obtained by those with a PI License (in order to be admissable), how do you feel this is going to effect the role of the computer forensic examiner. WIll it be harder for a CFE to be hired by an attorney, or do you see ways around this requirment?
Scott
Greetings,
I have good records and a California PI license and it looks like getting a PI license in IL will still be tough….
-David
IMHO the examiners who still provide good quality work will have no problems. I am surprised to not see a post about someone working directly for an attorney. Here in Indiana you can work directly for an attorney in an investigation and not be required to have a PI license.
Noble idea but "good quality work" doesn't help if the other side doesn't like the results you have, because they are unfavorable and according to the jurisdiction you fall under they can get it kicked out because you aren't a PI.
Personally, though, I think the standard of "good quality work" should be what is followed.
Get the jurisdiction changed to Federal Court. In Federal Court, it is the judge who determines what testimony can be admitted and state licensing is irrevelant (as it should be).
Get the jurisdiction changed to Federal Court. In Federal Court, it is the judge who determines what testimony can be admitted and state licensing is irrevelant (as it should be).
Now, that's funny.
"Mr attorney, how about making this a federal case, regardless of whether any federal statutes apply or apply favorably so I can testify".
If you can do that, Sean, dinner on me!
That will be challenged, especially if you are working directly for counsel.
IMHO the examiners who still provide good quality work will have no problems. I am surprised to not see a post about someone working directly for an attorney. Here in Indiana you can work directly for an attorney in an investigation and not be required to have a PI license.
Noble idea but "good quality work" doesn't help if the other side doesn't like the results you have, because they are unfavorable and according to the jurisdiction you fall under they can get it kicked out because you aren't a PI.
Personally, though, I think the standard of "good quality work" should be what is followed.
Get the jurisdiction changed to Federal Court. In Federal Court, it is the judge who determines what testimony can be admitted and state licensing is irrevelant (as it should be).
Now, that's funny.
"Mr attorney, how about making this a federal case, regardless of whether any federal statutes apply or apply favorably so I can testify".
If you can do that, Sean, dinner on me!
I've been involved in several cases that have started out in local jurisdiction then moved to Federal for a variety of reasons. True you can't simply choose your jurisdiction. But most of my cases involve actions which either Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, or there is dual jurisdiction. I'd say that 90% of our cases over the past 10 years have been subject to dual or Federal jurisdiction.
In the former case, the process is called "forum shopping" and if it were not a common practice, it would not have a name. In fact, as you are well aware, most contracts now include a forum selection clause stating which jurisdiction will hear any disputes arising out of the contract. While those clauses are, generally, upheld, they can't trump Federal jurisdiction for some infringements, such as copyright or patent infringement.
All in all, I think the forensic community has a few choices, either swallow the bitter pill of PI licensing (and other future similar issues), or come up with our own federated self regulation and then "force" states to acknowledge and it.
We can either sit back and whine about it, or do something about it.
I think Forensic Focus is sufficiently "heavy" to get some momentum going.
I am up for working on it.
All in all, I think the forensic community has a few choices, either swallow the bitter pill of PI licensing (and other future similar issues), or come up with our own federated self regulation and then "force" states to acknowledge and it.
Anyone know how the SANS Digital Forensic Groups Form Council of Digital Forensic Specialists (CDFS) initiative is going?