California Prohibited From Enforcing PI Licensing Law Against Anti-Spam Crusader (ij.org) 49
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 shared this report from non-profit libertarian law firm, the Institute for Justice:
U.S. District Judge Rita Lin has permanently enjoined the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services from enforcing its private-investigator licensing requirement against anti-spam entrepreneur Jay Fink. The order declares that forcing Jay to get a license to run his business is so irrational that it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...
Jay's business stems from California's anti-spam act, which allows individuals to sue spammers. But to sue, they have to first compile evidence. To do that, recipients often have to wade through thousands of emails. For more than a decade, Jay has offered a solution: he and his team will scour a client's junk folder and catalog the messages that likely violate the law. But last summer, Jay's job — and Californians' ability to bring spammers to justice — came to a screeching halt when the state told him he was a criminal. A regulator told Jay he needed a license to read through emails that might be used as evidence in a lawsuit. And because Jay didn't have a private investigator license, the state shut him down.
The state of California has since "agreed to jointly petition the court for an order that forever prohibits it from enforcing its licensure law against Jay," according to the article.
Otherwise the anti-spam crusader would've had to endure thousands of hours of private investigator training...
Jay's business stems from California's anti-spam act, which allows individuals to sue spammers. But to sue, they have to first compile evidence. To do that, recipients often have to wade through thousands of emails. For more than a decade, Jay has offered a solution: he and his team will scour a client's junk folder and catalog the messages that likely violate the law. But last summer, Jay's job — and Californians' ability to bring spammers to justice — came to a screeching halt when the state told him he was a criminal. A regulator told Jay he needed a license to read through emails that might be used as evidence in a lawsuit. And because Jay didn't have a private investigator license, the state shut him down.
The state of California has since "agreed to jointly petition the court for an order that forever prohibits it from enforcing its licensure law against Jay," according to the article.
Otherwise the anti-spam crusader would've had to endure thousands of hours of private investigator training...
Sensible - but still the courts legislating (Score:2)
This is clearly a flaw in the legislation, and for the courts to smack it down is clearly them legislating. This should not be!
Re:Sensible - but still the courts legislating (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the court is enforcing the Constitution. That is exactly it's mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
Interpretation is the problem, and everyone interprets things differently. The Supreme court is to finalize that interpretation and thus makes it law interpreted law.
What does this tell you? If interpretation changes... so can the law.
Courts interpret the law (Score:2)
The alternative model in the UK is that the courts are fully constrained by statute law. The recent introduction of the Human Rights Act enabled courts to comment that a piece of legislation contradicted the act, but didn't create the right of the court to strike it down. Both the US and USA are thriving democracies despite this significant difference...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always skeptical when courts strike down or order things on implicit authority. You could call me a hard-core constitutionalist.
But in this particular case, it seems to be the rare case of government action that is *so* irrational that there is no choice but to strike it.
Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) would be less of a stretch, but the particular agency wouldn't get a chance to flex its muscles for that.
[OK, the more I think of it, it very well *could* be UPL, if he's giving advice on what is grou
Occupational Licensing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
California is home to a lot of rich spammers. More likely one of them pulled strings to make this a big deal.
Re: Occupational Licensing (Score:2)
Sounds like requiring a cosmotologist license (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of when Washington required a full up cosmetologist license for braiding hair. The required course spent more time on dying hair than it did on safety. The most I can see would be teaching braiders how to recognize various hair critters, infections, that sort of thing. Plus keeping their brushes and other tools in the blue antiseptic fluid when not being used. Probably about a day. Not something more equivalent to a semester in college.
Anyways, private investigators need licensing because they regularly do things that may invade the privacy of others, and thus need to know right where the legal line is because they're brushing against it constantly. But then we're looking at people going out and following others, taking photographs, illicit recordings, etc...
The described work here is sifting through people's spam boxes. It's going through their mail, with permission. No need for all the other investigative stuff. They're not following people around, they're not going through private records, etc...
But there's a difference (Score:2)
My first reaction was cosmetology rules for hair braiders and taxi regulation as well.
But there *is* a difference here.
In the typical case, it's the entrenched players in the field trying to use the regulations to keep out competition.
Here, it appears to be recto-cranial inversion on the part of regulators trying to be officious and important.
I recall my anti-trust professor who explained much of the caselaw and choices of cases as young attorneys at DoJ thinking, "If I can win a case against IBM, there's a
Pi license (Score:3)
You have to have a license to use a Raspberry Pi ?
Re: (Score:3)
I remember that due to the 3D printed gun scare, there were proposals to require licenses for 3D printers.
Re: Pi license (Score:2)
Which is ironic given freedom of the press, which includes mass production of speech, not just a reporter.
Double-edge (Score:1, Flamebait)
This probably also has liability implications. I would imagine that a licensed, professional PI has some legal protections (as long as they follow the rules) and quite possibly liability insurance. This guy gets none of those. I doubt any insurance company on the planet would sell a liability policy to a random unlicensed schmoe who wants to play at being a for-profit inv
Re: (Score:2)
It’s one thing to use an LLC to build a company that sells crocheted doilies on etsy. This guy is in a business where every piece of his work is going to be carefully analyzed by a team of angry, hostile lawyers. That’s a lot of fait
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's exactly why LLCs exist. He is protected so long as his business affairs and personal affairs are completely separate. I don't know why you believe otherwise. This includes gross incompetence.
If you think otherwise, back it up with a credible source of information.
Re: (Score:3)
The post you are replying to provided a link to nolo.com which contains the following:
LLCs sh
Re: (Score:2)
The post you are replying to provided a link to nolo.com which contains the following:
LLCs shield you from ordinary liability (debts of your business). They DO NOT shield you from liability for your own acts of negligence. IANAL, etc.
The original original post THAT guy was replying to contained the phrase
the guy’s entire life savings is probably fair game in civil court
.
That's what the person you're replying to is replying to. He is saying that the operator's business and business-derived assets might be subject to liability, but that doesn't mean his "entire life savings is probably fair game". If someone retired from 30 years in a corporate position and formed their own business 3 years ago, then commits some kind of business negligence, that doesn't suddenly make their existing estate/IRAs/401k/pen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol this guy out here committing crimes thinking his LLCs are like free guys in mario.
Re: (Score:2)
In civil law it can be circumvented if conditions are met:
piercing the corporate veil [cornell.edu]
Re:Double-edge (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Should never be criminal. BUT I could see a judge granting a spammer defense motion to not accept their work as meeting proper evidence standards and excluding it from a case because of lack of a PI license, that's the absolute worst it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just like you can represent yourself in court, but need permission from the bar to represent others.
Re: (Score:2)
I very much doubt the PI license protects you in any way from liability. What would protect you is insurance. Anyone in business probably needs to have some type of professional liability insurance. The PI thing seems to not really matter one way or the other as far as that goes. Unless the underwriter wants him to have the PI license. The LLC form provides minimal protection from this type of liability (professional liability).
The LLC form may protect you from ordinary liability, such as debts owed by th
police training (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Solely based on watching videos of how cops manipulate and abuse their authority in the field, it's clear that what they learn in on-the-job training is how to be bad cops. Lying, bullying, verbal abuse, unnecessary physical violence are the stock and trade of far to many u
Re: (Score:3)
If this were to happen would you personally go out and beat the homeless just for kicks? Planning on a murder spree of vulnerable people, say women and children. Your psychopathic tendencies are showing...
Re: (Score:2)
don't hate the player, hate the game ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
don't hate the player, hate the game ;-)
Sure, I hate the game where only the rich can afford protection. If this comment were sage advice, it still doesn't support privatizing the police.
But the quote is misleading. If players refused to play, there wouldn't be a game. In the game of politics some players are almost universally hated, e.g. [insert Godwin's law here].
Re: (Score:2)
what are you complaining about? at least california is trying to handicap private industry, even when it's legitimately trying to do good.
you should be happy!
Re:police training (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of that 6000 hours is probably some sort of experience. Yup, the Internet tells me that all of it is:
I.e. you need 6000 hours of some kind of vaguely relevant experience before you get to tell your boss to shove it, put your name on the glass in the door and start drinking by yourself waiting for a leggy blonde to stumble into your office.
Cops don't start out detectives, they never work unsupervised, and they don't do much alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google also tells me that the LAPD requires a minimum of four years as a patrol officer before you can be considered for detective. Patrol officers get six months of academy training plus a year as probationary officers with on the job training. After that apparently you're still probationary and under the direct supervision of a training officer until you get your next promotion. Then you're under the supervision of a sergeant, etc.
I suspect a licensed PI is probably not actually drinking alone in his offi
why? (Score:2)
Why did Calif do this? You think that bureaucrats who like nothing better than sitting on their butts sought out this guy? Someone obviously complained, someone with clout. Like someone who was on the potential losing end of a spam lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
This worked because IJ stepped in to fight it (Score:2)
How many bad bureaucratic decisions don't get overturned because the legal costs are too burdensome to fight it?
The woke at work (Score:3)
This Californian is never deleting his spam folder (Score:2)
And as a domain owner, you wouldn't even believe how much spam ends in the "catchall" mailbox, most of which are addressed to made-up addresses.
more interesting (Score:2)
...would be to find out who "suggested" to the state official that they investigate this guy and squeeze him out of what he was doing, and how much they donated to that officials pocket.
Maybe someone should hire an investigator.
Have the lawsuits made any difference? (Score:2)
The vast overwhelming majority of all spam originates outside the US. Suing those people is as useful as yelling at a river to run in the other direction. US-borne spam is so highly obfuscated that even finding a liable party to sue is almost pointless.