PC Repair In Texas Now Requires a PI License 729
JohnnyNapalm writes "In some shocking news out of Texas, PC repair will now require a PI License. Surely this stands to have a substantial impact on small repair shops around the state if upheld. Never fear, however, as the first counter-suit has already been filed."
Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the Slaughterhouse Cases [wikipedia.org] already determined that a state-run cartel can push out individuals not meeting specific criteria.
Such a right to "sustain ones life through labor" simply does not exist at the Federal level... Now, they are pushing this under the Texas constitution, and I don't know for sure what the Texas constitution says about it, however likely, just like Louisiana, they probably don't guarentee a person's right to work in a particular field.
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
I hate to say this, but these people probably don't have a single leg to stand on legally, because this has all been through the courts before... of course, I could be wrong, and things could change. But I don't expect it to.
If Texas ruled you had the right to do any work between two knowing and consenting adults, then that would lead to situations potentially opening the way to prostitution (which I don't think should be illegal) or circumvention of licensing standards for other professions. Why do I need government permission to be a cop? I can pull over anyone I want, and by telling me that I can't, the government is making me unable to sustain my life through the labor of my choosing.
I think the biggest issue here, is that police and other criminology people are concerned that if a computer tech stumbles across illegal information on a computer, that since they are not a licensed private investigator, the evidence cannot in any way be used. Even if say, it's for a child-pornography case. "Your evidence was siezed improperly, sorry, but it's excluded, next time do things the right way!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
And if the patients know this, what exactly is wrong with it?
This is one good reason why medical care costs so much in this country.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there are a lot of crooks in this country, and was the reason these kind of laws were put into place in the first place. We all expect doctors to have a certain level of training, and just because someone says they have the equivalent, doesn't mean they do.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was ever a time for a Texan to learn how to fix his or her own computer system
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, it would have been a good idea to get started in 2002.
Your government hasn't given up on the idea that any worker with access to your privacy should inform them of your activities.
Join the Citizen Corps [smh.com.au]. Protect your country from terrorism now!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your government hasn't given up on the idea that any worker with access to your privacy should inform them of your activities.
Join the Citizen Corps [smh.com.au]. Protect your country from terrorism now!
.au? That's not my country.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, one firm that employs me has been using Quicken 2001 for their accounting needs. That product is no longer sold. Getting their crucial accounting data from that old program to some new software is far beyond the average user... FAR beyond. Just choosing a new program to migrate to is more than most small business owners want to deal with.
So, they're faced with the choice of either hiring me (or someone like me) to help them with that, or else attempting to do it themselves with the aid of tech support, which will be frustrating and time consuming at best. This law really hoses people like that. They'll be paying twice as much for that type of service, all so that some private dick can be clicking the keys.
I do think you're correct about a black market for computer repair being created. That's what happens every time the government tries to limit commerce. I'm not always against government regulation. I'm not one of those free market extremists who think that the government should be abolished. But, this is certainly too much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I moved from Quicken 2000 to Moneydance with no issues. It has full support for importing the Quicken files or Quicken backup files. I know this is off topic, but as you stated that it is so difficult I thought I might trow you a simple solution. Moneydance is well worth the $40, and it works on Lin/Win/OSX nativly. :)
http://moneydance.com/ [moneydance.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly your example is more proof to point to that companies that run without an It department or a regular IT consultant are dumb. They ran how long with out of date software? Also who was the one that made the bonehead decision to use software that not only locks you in but locks you to the upgrade treadmill or you die? Why dont they have real accounting software that allows data migration?
Simple, the people that made those decisions had no IT experience or knowledge. now they are in a nasty pickl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though this will probably also effect computer retailers as well. That Dell tech that gets sent to your business because your in warranty computer no longer works probably would have to obtain a PI license as well. Dell doesn't pay these people nearly enough for that.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is great for geeks. When my neighbor asks me to swap-out the hard-drive in his PC, I can say, "Sorry, that's illegal. But I will stand over your shoulder and walk you through it." That way, some people will learn (with help) how to do these things for themselves, and others will stop asking. The second type of person will contribute to great dumpster-diving days ahead. That is a win-win.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess my Dr. should have a PI license so that if I use drugs he can tell the police then. Or my mechanic should have PI so if he finds child porn in my trunk I can be reported. Lets just make a PI license a requirement for entering the country... that'll work!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Doctor-patient privilege would prevent a doctor from telling the cops that one of his patients used drugs. The only point where he could release that information to others would be if the patient gave express permission or if the information was necessary to save the patient's life. (And even then, the confidentiality clause would extend to other medical personnel informed of the drug abuse.)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Funny)
>...but do I expect my local PC tech guy to have investigative training? ...
It's so that they can carry a gun before telling you: "I reformatted your harddrive, you have a backup, don't you?"
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is crazy too.
To balance it out...ok, make them all have to be PI's. However, just pass a 2nd law making anything found on a computer without a valid search warrent (before it is cracked open) invalid in a court of law. A person working on a PC is not supposed to be looking for/at files that are not part of the problem to the system working. This way...if something is stumbled across, it is inadmissible in a court of law.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Informative)
No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training
Actually, and I'm being quite serious, I've found that assumption to be dangerous. Personal experience with myself and immediate family.
- Neurologist prescribing a medication for seizures, then continually increasing the dosage when one of the contraindications for giving it is seizures. Patient went from an occasional seizure to seizing on average every 2 days. When he was shown this information he replied, "oh okay, maybe it's contributing, let's cut it out" without bothering to read that immediately cutting out this med has been known to make normal patients suicidal. Thank fuck for Google. Anyone who says you shouldn't self-diagnose can go fuck themselves.
- 2 lung specialist doctors insisting that wheezing flemy pregnant woman with bronchitis has just picked up "bad breathing techniques". The shallow breathing couldn't possibly be caused by the pregnancy. The woman couldn't possibly be emotional because she's had to sleep sitting up for weeks lest she cough and splutter. While you're at it have a dig at the patient's weight despite her recent injury (hit by a car, bulging disc and nerve damage) and pregnancy. Yeah really wonder why she might get emotional.
- Head orthopod at a large suburban hospital insisting a shoulder isn't dislocated despite an obvious bulge because he's failed to take an axial view (required to show posterior dislocations, and the patient had a long history of them).
- Hearing specialist refusing to believe there is a hearing problem and instead blaming it on being in the patient's head because he couldn't get a consistent reading asking her to listen to tones. Turns out when he did a hearing test that did not require the patient to tell him when tones sounded there was a significant hearing loss. But hey it's easier to suggest your patient sees a psychiatrist.
- Dentist doing such a poor job on a root canal that another detentist was horrified. The tooth was lost (after a couple of thousand spent on the procedures).
- Patient's first visit with a doctor. First high blood pressure reading found. Patient is overweight and has an ankle injury. Suggestion isn't blood pressure meds and exploring moderate weight loss options. No within 5 minutes of seeing this patient the doctor wants to do stomach banding.
That's just in the last 5 years. Guess what country I live in? No it's not 3rd world. It's Australia. Private health cover too in several instances above. If you complain you risk getting no care when you need it. Best bet is to not get sick. Failing that check everything you're told and make sure you're earning big money because you may end up with a few $300+ bills for a 15 minute chat and a misdiagnosis or an insult.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scary stories.
A good friend of mine had his mom die when he was young in large part due to a medical error. Not surprisingly, he has been mistrustful of doctors ever since, but from his cynicism was born one fantastic bit of wisdom: "Doctors are just tech support for your body."
I haven't found the tech support yet that I wouldn't check on with my own research.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there are a lot of crooks in this country, and was the reason these kind of laws were put into place in the first place. We all expect doctors to have a certain level of training, and just because someone says they have the equivalent, doesn't mean they do.
Of course, but that doesn't mean we should be arresting everyone on Slashdot for speculating about legal issues without being members of the bar. As long as you're not misrepresenting your credentials, what's the problem? And as far as this case goes, nobody who goes to Best Buy with computer problems is even asking for an investigator -- they just want somebody to install antivirus and make AOL work again. So what misrepresentation is occurring that requires a licensing agency?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And how many doctors, licensed doctors, screw up every day? A license does not guarantee competency, and lack of a license does not guarantee lack of competency.
Since you mentioned doctors, I can tell you a few stories. First, at one point I worked in a medical clinic (as a computer tech). My boss was a med school graduate who was trying to get his license. I walked in on him studying and jokingly asked what he was so worried about since the test was easy. His response, "OK, smart ass, what's the answer to
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the patients know this, what exactly is wrong with it?
To play liberal's advocate for a moment, the US health care system as it stands today requires licensing to get malpractice insurance. This is a pretty reasonable expectation should say, your leg be accidentally amputated during an annual checkup. This same policy applies to your insurance payables for eg. massage therapy. Registered therapist's services are invariably insured, whereas non-licensed massage services (teehee) are almost never covered.
The subtle reason for any of this concern is the principle of "informed consent". Without a medical degree, how can you effectively evaluate (in advance, no less) the skills of someone whose actions potentially put your life in definite, immediate risk? The liberal mindset is that you are not allowed to choose, even if you actually are informed, since other uninformed people will frequently make "the wrong choice".
As for my personal opinion, I think that the vast majority of medical conditions can be dealt with by someone with significantly less training/licensing (eg. nurses, online/telephone professionals, etc) than is currently demanded; heart surgeries are much less common than colds, as dreamy as McDreamy is.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Interesting)
In Ontario this is actually the the stance taken. They have set up a telehealth phoneline staffed by nurses and other qualified people so that people don't go down to the emergency room, or run to the doctor every time you have a rash or a cough. We've used their services quite a few times, and the answers they give are quite good. It's really nice to have a nice way to get quick qualified answers to health questions.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Informative)
In BC they also published and shipped to every household a pretty good book on minor medical problems. I know my household has used the book quite a bit, especially when my son was quite young. And this has led to us not going to the doctor for minor problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Informative)
liberalism (Score:5, Interesting)
The liberal mindset is that you are not allowed to choose
That's not a liberal mindset. The original liberalism, Classical Liberalism [wikipedia.org] which stems from The Age Of Enlightenment [wikipedia.org] and The Age of Reason [wikipedia.org], was all about liberty and small government. Among the USA's Founding Fathers who were Liberals were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine. The father of Capitalism Adam Smith was a Liberal. As used today "liberal" and "liberalism" has been twisted to mean something a lot different than it did.
Then again other words have had the same thing done to them, like "hack" and "hacker". Whereas a hack used to mean something creative and a hacker was someone who hacked, and writers were hacks too, today they are used for crimes and criminals. As used with computers a hacker follows the Hacker ethic [wikipedia.org].
Falcon
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually both liberals and conservatives want to protect choice--just on different issues. Conservatives want to protect your choice to spend your money but want to apply their concepts of morality on society. Liberals, meanwhile, don't really care what you do morally speaking as long as you do what they tell you to do with your money.
Which is better? In my opinion a moral society in which people can do what they want with their money is desirable to a morally corrupt society where everything goes as long as you're paying extortion money to the liberal government. But that's just my opinion.
The only ones that really have a passion for freedom of choice across the board are libertarians. They have some good ideological points, though I think their platform is lacking from a practical standpoint.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that you picked the Conservative PoV as the most moral.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Funny)
Ever hear the expression "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"?
Yes, that way if he gets angry with you he's a mile away, and barefoot.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? What your health insurer has is a clear incentive to send you to the cheapest dumbass they can find, and then simply disbelieve you and deny your claim when you complain that he screwed up.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a joke? Would you have untrained "doctors" able to prescribe narcotics? Over use antibiotics? Perform surgery?
I would hardly put Joe-College Student reinstalling Windows on par with a trained professional who went to school for 12 years to be able to do, you know, brain surgery or something?
Do we really, really want to live in a society that swapping a CD-ROM drive requires several years of professional training?
Apple and Geek Squad executives, put your freakin' hands down.
Besides that, collecting evidence about crime is very, very definitely not my problem. Child Porn on some pervert's machine? Call the cops, get them to get an engineer out and -- more importantly -- a warrant for the drive. Despite 8 years of lawless Neo-Con rule, you still need a warrant for this kinda stuff. In theory.
Fortunately this will be shot down in court.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
..... Look at the requirements to be a barber or beautician....
It seems that equating those who work on computers with those who work on people is gross foolishness. It is especially foolish to require a PI license for someone who repairs a computer. By the rationale that supposedly went into this law, anybody who has access to data should need such a license. After all, they may come across some data that the cops might need that must be preserved properly and pristine, in order to be stand up in a court of law.
It might be instructive to learn who the monied interests are that lobbied for this law. There is very little law made anywhere these days, that does NOT have some money reason behind it. Laws generally get suggested by those who stand to gain financially by the existence of said laws. If such people or companies have the money to put behind the appropriate politicians, they won't hesitate to do so. As the saying goes, "Follow the money".
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no way to prove that you didn't put it there yourself to frame him, and your word -- with you not being a P.I. or law enforcement officer -- isn't strong enough to override that doubt, so the evidence is inadmissible.
Actually, being a PI would theoretically give you the required expertise to plant the incriminating evidence without it being traceable to your actions, thus giving the guy's claim of a setup increased plausibility.
life and limb (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it makes sense for skills to be licensed in areas where life and limb are potentially at risk.
So you want to license parents then?
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So does the garbage man need a PI license, just in case he sees something in the trash? Does the gardener need one just in case the plants dieing in a corner of the yard are due to buried evidence?
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
What? That's most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
Not that I'm particularly worried about this law. The black market for computer repair people without PI licenses will be HUGE. Computer savvy neighbor kids who know how to reinstall Windows and upgrade RAM are going to love this law.
Knowing use of unlicensed personnel = crime (Score:3, Interesting)
The law [state.tx.us] provides for fines of knowing use of someone who is not licensed.
But the law also is focused on those who call themselves "Security Services personnel" -- guards, those who do investigations (PI's).
I'm not sure how people are getting this applies to computer repairs....the security personnel must also be licensed to carry a gun....
This doesn't seem to be the run-of-the-mill computer repair situation. Maybe if you are investigating 'fraud' in a company...but, beyond that --
Someone want to 'enlighten
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Repairing a computer is much more likely to produce evidence against someone.
I would argue that firing a gun is much more likely to produce evidence against someone than repairing a computer will, but you don't need any kind of license for that in Texas.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no evidence collection rules about trash. The owner of that item has already released ownership and rights to keep it from search and seizure.
Here is a hint for you. If you throw something illegal away, you're an idiot, because cops don't need anyone's permission to collect that evidence anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because computers are much more likely to be involved in crimes, and hold evidence of said crimes.
I'm sorry, that reasoning is just... psychotic.
Who are you, exactly, and what are your qualifications and vested interests in this area?
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Informative)
Here on Slashdot, you shouldn't expect anybody to even notice your screen name, let alone infer your gender from it. Remember, this is the Internet: men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents.
Also, in English, "he" is the correct pronoun to use to refer to a singular person of unknown gender.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alas you are thinking of the similar languages called Ahmerrycan or possibly Ebonics if your teachers were too lazy - in English we use "they".
Grammar and spelling arguments are completely irrelevant and even look childish on an International forum like this anyway, so if the earlier poster conveyed the meaning why worry?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
....No, because computers are much more likely to be involved in crimes....
So why single out people who REPAIR computers? What about people who administer servers containing terabytes of data? Is it not also likely that among all the data might be buried some evidence of crimes? Why not require such a license for everybody who touches a computer not their own? How is someone who reinstalls Windows will replace us a video card different from other computer professionals?
I think that the law enforcement angl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
....when did it become ok in America to FORCE an entire profession to become an arm of the government.....
When they passed income tax and payroll withholding laws, every employer became an arm of the IRS. Doctors have long been required by law to report all sorts of things to the government. Anyone who knowingly fails to report a fugitive criminal, is breaking the law and thereby can be himself go to jail. These sorts of laws have been on the books for along time and nobody complained about it.
Re:MediaSentry? Slashdot agrees!.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference. MediaSentry are doing investigative work. PC Repair techs are doing repair work. It's slashdot, so we need a car analogy--would you demand that a automobile mechanic have a PI license so that they can properly handle any potential evidence found in the car during routine repairs?
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even.
Uhh yea but those licenses actually pertain to the profession in question.
I don't know why the summary says "small repair shops". In reality such a requirement will throw a total wrench into any big chain that does computer maitenance. Theres no way the kids who work in Best Buy have PI licenses.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing the Geek Squad will just need to have a PI on duty any time the kids are tinkering on other people's computers.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Repair staff are effectively being hired to spy on people: they should be paid, rather than the other way around.
The people gathering the evidence are also capable of planting evidence - and there are a lot of computer repair businesses.
What happens if someone doesn't report something they find (and doesn't blackmail their customer, either?)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Informative)
He said it's cheap to force them to get PI Licenses, not that it's cheap to get PI licenses.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even.
I'm sorry, but that's a crap argument. In all of those cases, the licensing requirements are related to the actual job. In this case? Completely unrelated.
And Louisiana law is fairly different from Texas law. Louisiana is sort of the red haired bastard stepchild when it comes to the law because of the heavy French influence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who crapped on Louisiana's legal system? I just said the law there is different and you really can't make assumptions.
"red haired bastard stepchild" doesn't always mean bad.
Re:French influence. (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, the Napoleonic code worked like a cross between a court martial and a Congressional inquiry. The stated objective was to get to the truth of the matter by means of inquisitors. The problem with the system is that it was designed by militaristic megalomaniacs in the Roman era and perfected by a militaristic megalomaniac in France. Inquisitor-based justice is more easily abused than other forms, to the point where the word "inquisition" has entered the English language in a very negative sense.
The Anglo-Saxon system was basically invented by Alfred the Great (the only king of England to earn the title of "great", such was his achievements) but was merged to some degree from Danelaw, the Danish legal system brought over by Nordic invaders. This legal code asserted certain rights and certain responsibilities for all. This was properly codified under the Magna Carta, which asserted limits to power, the right of an individual to a trial by peers, the right of an individual to not be convicted on unsubstantiated testimony, the prohibition of fines or penalties which denied a person their livelihood and the diplomatic immunity of foreign merchants except at times of war. In all cases, though, it was a trial between a prosecutor and a defendant in which the event in question was less important than whether the defendant should be punished. (Prior to King Alfred, law was whatever the elders or the local leaders decided it was, it was not uniform and there were no established rights or bounds. Prior to the Magna Carta, rulers could not be held to account for abuse of power, and even afterwards it was rare, but in theory it withdrew much immunity from Barons, Lords and the King himself. Each layer asserted stronger rights with stronger bounds and stronger protections.)
Really, a future legal system needs to borrow ideas from both. It's unsound to prosecute a case before establishing what the facts of the case are. Facts should be studied in a more neutral light, only getting into the spin doctoring once the jury knows what is being spun. The Anglo-Saxon system, by being very formalized and definite in rights, works wonderfully if the jury is swayed more on an intellectual basis than an emotional one, far more so than the Napoleonic system. It is easy to corrupt, though, if information is denied and one side plays dirty.
In England, you'll sometimes see a mix of the two concepts, where there is a public inquest followed by a trial, where the inquest establishes the facts and the trial then prosecutes on the basis of those facts. That's a good arrangement - not perfect, but a lot better than most.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the biggest issue here, is that police and other criminology people are concerned that if a computer tech stumbles across illegal information on a computer, that since they are not a licensed private investigator, the evidence cannot in any way be used. Even if say, it's for a child-pornography case. "Your evidence was siezed improperly, sorry, but it's excluded, next time do things the right way!"
I guess that we should also make anyone who develops photos get a PI license as well. That's a great way to boost salaries at Walmart.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...require licenses ...
To breathe, drink water, eat, drive, chase dogs or cats, teach, build houses or outhouses or most anything else, hunt or fish, make love with or without marriage, which also is licensed. You'd be hard pressed to come up with something that is NOT licensed or permitted, either directly or indirectly, by some level of government. So big deal, another license to do something in life is added to the collection of thousands of things that government requires licenses for.
I agree with you t
Venus on the Half-Shell (Score:5, Interesting)
Or to put it another way, see the metaphor used by Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin.
I think the trend to move responsibility into the hands of licensors has rational limits. I believe it is the purpose of satire to determine what those limits are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Relevance? Perhaps EMS Techs should have Class C or emergency vehicle drivers licenses? Now of course, EMTs who are ambulance drivers... well, that is a different story.
You see, unless I am reading all the links wrong, technicians (in general) will not be required to get a PI license. Technicians who do disk forensics will be required to do so... totally different thing - as my example simplifies for those who didnt bother to read past the over-sensationalized articles linked to in the /. story.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually went and looked at the law itself. Yes, it applies to those whose work involves the review and analysis of material stored on a computer. That could be read to apply to pretty much anyone. Do any sysadmin work? Debug any cron jobs? Trying to find out why a partition got full? Heck, read email?
The law is really, really dumb. Especially since much "computer forensics" is just people (including cops) trained to run a few perl scripts via a nice point-n-click gui. they wouldn't know how to do a sector-by-sector analysis of a drive if you held a gun to their kids' head.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Informative)
The law very specifically states that it applies to companies doing work as a private security consultant. As a PC service shop, I certainly don't position or consider myself to be in the place of a private security consultant. Even if my customer asks me to do simple data recovery tasks, this does not fall under the umbrella of security consulting, or review and analysis of data. I may recommend security solutions or implement those solutions, but I am not providing the solutions, those are provided by 3rd party software companies. I may recommend security guidelines but I am not ultimately responsible for the carrying out of those guidelines.
From what I read in the law, it is meant to prevent a company from telling customers they are providing a security solution when in fact they know nothing about security. If I was in the business of doing sitewide security analysis and consulting, maybe I could see the need for some regulation, as the state doesn't want customers getting ripped off by people promising security solutions and not really making anything secure.
Re:Slaughterhouse Cases (Score:5, Interesting)
If this story is true, then whatever harebrained idiot thought this one up should have to do penance in the form of having to take the place of one of those undocumented maids for the next twenty years. That said, I don't see anything in that law that suggests that computer repair people have to be licensed PIs. The only people that are covered there are people who are doing forensic analysis on data not available to the general public. If you hire someone to do computer forensics (e.g. investigating the contents of a hard drive), that's a completely different service from merely replacing a defective power supply or even reinstalling Windows. Stretching that law to cover basic computer repairs is a fairly blatant perversion of the law as written and almost certainly won't hold up in court unless I'm either grossly misreading it or the story linked from this one is linking to the wrong law.
In any case, assuming the story is legit, let's take this same logic one step further. A maid finds child porn while cleaning some guy's den. We should, therefore, obviously require that every illegal, undocumented maid working in the state of Texas have a PI license. Similarly, every maintenance crew working for a company, every IT employee, every office assistant who might potentially use his/her boss's computer, every school computer lab administrator, every plumber (child porn could be hidden under the sink, you know), every electrician (going to rewire somebody's entertainment center), and every employee at every hard drive refurbishing center.
In short, this same logic would apply equally to large swaths of our population for precisely the same reason, and I predict this law will be struck down swiftly for precisely that reason. It unfairly singles out one small group for regulation out of a much larger group of people for whom the same conditions apply.
Further, as someone said a couple of posts up, the difference between laws requiring a PI license for this and laws requiring a PI license for someone doing an investigation, a medical license for a doctor, etc. is that in all of the cases where such laws have been considered constitutional in the past, the reason for the license was for the protection of the person hiring out for the work to ensure that the person doesn't get shafted, while in this case, the laws are predominantly for the protection of the state and are in direct contradiction to the needs, desires, and best interests of the person hiring out for the work.
As for planting evidence, there's really no more protection against that just because somebody has a PI license. There are plenty of crooked licensed private investigators, lawyers, doctors, etc. At best, there is the additional disincentive of losing your license if caught, but it's not like a computer repair tech can't get a job doing computer repair in a corporate IT department, which presumably would not entail such licensing requirements, or else there are likely to be a lot of high-tech companies (e.g. Apple, Dell, etc.) telling Texas to go f*ck themselves and moving their operations to another state.
More importantly, computer companies that contract out mail-in repairs are likely to eschew Texas from now on. Why? Too much extra expense. Instead of hiring a minimum-wage person and training them in a week, they'll have to hire someone with an expensive license and/or spend months training them at tremendous expense. I know a couple of businesses that are likely to dry up overnight.
Sounds like yet another stupid law written by stupid people for stupid reasons that won't actually fix what it was intended to fix. Since that describes about 98% of all laws passed in my lifetime, could somebody explain why this is news? :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm mandated to tell you to get stuffed. Meet my friend, Louisville Slugger."
Effective privacy legislation is what you really need. Up here (Quebec) private investigators aren't allowed to snoop into people's private lives. No following your spouse around to dig up dirt, no making friends with someone at the DMV (ok, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec - the SAAQ) - the last employee caught giving out pers
I read it as (Score:5, Funny)
"PC Repair in Texas now requires a pi license"
Want to fix PCs? Recite the first 100 decimal places of pi.
Re:I read it as (Score:4, Funny)
Want to fix PCs? Recite the first 100 decimal places of pi.
Given a lot of the people that repair PCs, it would probably be easier for them to get a P.I. license.
I don't think the report is accurate (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but I don't think PC Mag or "CW33" read the law. Per Section 4a1 and 4b, it only applies if you're specifically snooping in the data on the computer. It says nothing about normal repair. Not that someone disgruntled couldn't try to make a case out of it...
so like-- searching for spyware? (Score:4, Interesting)
especially spyware with names like
resume.doc.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think the report is accurate (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this is /. and reading the article is bad form, but from the article:
Imagine that doing a "find . -name file.jpg" or similar might be considered an "investigation".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't think the report is accurate (Score:5, Informative)
Read the entire law. .
Sec. 1702.104 defines an "investigations company". A person acts as an investigations company if he engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employement to obtain or furnish information related to crimes or activity of a person, or location of stolen property, or cause for a fire, libel, etc.
A computer repair business in not in the business of doing any of that. They aren't in the business of obtaining information regarding crimes, they are in the computer repair business. The information they gather is "what doesn't work".
It is 1702.104(b) that seems to be troublesome because it talks about "computer-based data not available to the public."
The fact that 1702.104(b) defines what obtaining information means is irrelevant, since (a)(1) doesn't apply to a computer repair business to start with. Defining what obtaining data means doesn't change the limitations on who 1702.104(a)(1) applies to. It expands the activities of the people who are covered by (a)(1) to include computer searches.
If you start a business tailored specifically to PI's and forensic analysis, say fixing broken computers with the explicit intent of getting the data off of them to determine crimes, cause of fires, etc, then yes, you need a PI license. If you are just replacing a defective CPU or disk, no. You are not in the business of obtaining information listed in (a)(1).
In short, it all revolves around the phrase "in the business of".
This law is a good thing. It may be possible to sue a "computer repair company" that does, as a matter of regular business, "investigate" the content of your computer when you take it in for repair. They've made themselves "in the business of" by looking for information related to crimes. But Joe Technician who sticks to finding the bad bits and replacing them has nothing to worry about. And if you are stupid enough to make kiddie porn the splash logo on your boot screen, or background image after an auto-login, Joe is still able to call the cops, since his job isn't obtaining the information, YOU gave it to him by your actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that someone disgruntled couldn't try to make a case out of it...
Or some DA who wants to look "tough on crime" in anticipation of running for office.
And while I don't want to sound insulting, Texas isn't known for the discretion of their prosecutors or integrity of their police / crime labs.
Re:I don't think the report is accurate (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but I don't think PC Mag or "CW33" read the law. Per Section 4a1 and 4b, it only applies if you're specifically snooping in the data on the computer. It says nothing about normal repair. Not that someone disgruntled couldn't try to make a case out of it...
Agree w/ vanyel. If you read the original quoted article [wordpress.com], you'll see that the original author only wondered out aloud if this would apply to PC repair folks. From the post:
Re:I don't think the report is accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes ... "(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
Looks like it's aimed at "computer security" consultants, not repair firms.
Re:This law is to prevent me from perv catching (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a contractor that operates outside the box, almost a vigilante. I cannot name what software I use or I would be easily identified. I do not engage in corp espionage but this law would stop me in my tracks if I were to ever have stepped foot in Texas.
Good! You have no right to snoop around other people's computers, even if you think you're doing it for a noble cause. (Which you aren't, by the way -- if you really wanted to help people, you'd go after the ones creating these images in the first place.)
I hope to turn in many more.
And I hope that when your vigilante game finally lands you in prison, you'll meet up with some of your victims.
I'm at a loss for words... (Score:2, Interesting)
No (Score:5, Informative)
Please follow the links and see that the summary is wrong. The new law requires a PI license if you act as a private security consultant company (which can be an individual).
The relevant qualification for the Slashdot crowd are that you must
and do so by
IOW, you can't take into divorce court the notion that your spouse was having a cyber-affair based on having your computer looked at by the kid down the block. This doesn't appear to have much effect on most repair shops.
The text is here. [state.tx.us] Read it. The word "computer" appears in the text just once, so grep for the relevant part.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
These seems even more far reaching (Score:2, Insightful)
BAD headline/article (Score:5, Insightful)
All this means is in order for Geek Squad (or anyone) to perform forensic data recovery for example, on behalf of your local PD, or even a PI, the Geek Squad technician would also need a PI license.
No. Shit. It would be an obvious loophole otherwise.
Every computer repair person in the damned state doesn't qualify under (a)(1), sorry pcmag/slashdot. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand this, but you DO have to have more than a 5th grade reading level to backtrack from (b) to (a)(1) I guess. Besides, your shit is "public" as soon as you hand your PC to the repair person. This is not some sinister, evil law, douche bags.
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY.
(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
And please stop posting news of new laws that are obviously not reviewed by real lawyers or people who can fucking read at least. PLEASE.
Try reading the law (Score:5, Informative)
These articles are a ridiculous over-reaction to the actual law, which I just spent a few minutes actually reading. Nothing in that law has anything to do with computer repair. It DOES have something to do with companies that offer computer forensic services for legal actions, and some repair shops do that, but you shouldn't be going to Corner Computer Repair, or Joe Computer Guy if you have a requirement for forensic work in a legal sense. If you actually think your computer was hacked, you need to get people with the kind of legal training that can get things done the way the legal system requires them to be done.
The law is in legalese, and therefore hard to read, but the only thing this applies to are people doing this for investigations of a legal nature. There is a long list of exemptions, including one for people who install and repair security devices.
For a bunch of people that claim to be rational and above superstition, you people are totally credulous when wild statements like this are made. The law is there, it's linked to, read it for yourself.
Re:Try reading the law (Score:5, Informative)
No, it'd be illegal for you to investigate what went wrong, what entity is at fault for that going wrong, and sell me that information. It wouldn't stop you from examining the computer (even the OS) and seeing what is not functioning right, and repairing it. If I hand you my computer and tell you to "fix it" what you're selling me is the repair service, not the information. If I brought you a computer and said, " if you tell me what's wrong with this, and who did it, I'll give you 100 bucks" that would be illegal. Same if I brought you a computer and asked you to find out what my girlfriend or even my child has done on it. On top of it, it would be illegal for me to even ask you to do that if I knew you weren't licensed to. Even deep data recovery using "forensic" tools would not be illegal, unless you're selling the list of sectors that "lost" data is on. If you're actually recovering the data, you're in the clear. Copied and pasted the relevant bit from the law, note the large importance "information related to" has in all this.
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or
furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a
state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of
lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire,
libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
This does have big implications for security researchers in Texas, but for small time repair shops, aside from being legally bound to say "I can't do that" when someone asks them whether their kid broke their computer, or wants you to check whether their girlfriend is cheating on them, is pretty much nil.
User License (Score:4, Funny)
Read the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I can tell, the lawsuit is preemptive. No one has been charged. It was intended to be enforced against repair shops that do actual investigations that a PI would be doing if it wasn't on a computer (tracking usage, seeing what people were up to). However, the law was vague enough in some aspects that it could cover much more than was apparently intended, and the lawsuit is to determine what is and is not allowed under the law, and overturn any parts that are onerous enough to violate the state or US constitutions. The law did not say "all repair shops must have PI licenses." The people enforcing the law didn't say that either. However, if they are in the "security industry" or if they perform an "investigation" (and I couldn't find specific definitions of those) then they would need to be licensed.
Calm down and read the source material (Score:5, Informative)
Folks, calm down. The fault here seems to lie with the person who wrote the newspaper article. I read the Texas law in question and I don't see a problem.
Here's the important passage:
----
INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts
as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an
individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
----
I don't see how the applies to computer repair shops.
I searched the entire text and found only two instances of the word "repair", both in reference to the repair of "security devices" and the word "computer" is only used once in the entire document (in the last sentence of the passage above.)
The "PC Magazine" story cites as it's source a "Dallas-Ft. Worth CW Affiliate." That affiliate published a story penned by:
"Pelpina Trip, KDAF33 News at Nine Intern"
It looks like you have all been riled up into a foamy froth by AN INTERN AT A LOCAL TV NEWS OUTFIT.
Do you feel foolish yet?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
E-Discovery (Score:3, Informative)
RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Confusing... (Score:5, Informative)
I read through the primary source document listed and did not see "computer technician" specifically listed in the language. I just cruised over it and searched for "computer" and "technician" but it only referred to persons who install security equipment such as alarms and surveillance devices.
Can somebody with better eyes point out the article or section that supports the blogger's statement?
It was a wet and smoky night... (Score:3, Funny)
It was a wet and smoky night, the kind of night that made my teeth itch. I tipped back my fedora as I polished off that last bottle of Crown Royal that had been mocking me from the bottom desk drawer all day, when Gwendolyn Smalls sashayed through my door, dragging her HP Presario - with a look that would make a small baby cry...
Re: (Score:2)
"Private investigator." Not the police, but someone you hire to, for example, follow your spouse around to see if they are cheating.
Re:But it's okay to shoot robbers in the back ther (Score:5, Interesting)
When you see a couple of strangers breaking the window on a neighbor's house and climbing in, that's a pretty well-founded belief.
Running when someone points a gun at you and tells you to freeze is also pretty damned stupid. If you believe the police officer who was an eyewitness, the folks in question ran at such a trajectory as to be closer to the neighbor with the gun when they were shot than they were when he told them to freeze -- which is exceptionally stupid, as it gives said party with the gun grounds to be legitimately afraid for their life, and thus the ability to shoot. If you're going to run away from the person with the gun who told you to freeze -- which is a bad idea to start with -- you want to run unambiguously away, not towards and then turn.
I don't fault the grand jury for deciding not to prosecute; I would have gone the same way.
Re:It is fine to defend your own and others proper (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if this information was found in the normal course of fixing the computer, this evidence would be "illegal" to have been found by anyone other than a registered PI -- and anyone reporting it would be de-facto "admitting" they'd broken the law by "conducting a search".
So, if your TV repairman sees evidence that you have a meth lab, he's not allowed to report it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...the problem being that the law requires licensing saying you know how to do P.I. work, but no actual knowledge of computers is required.