Slashdot Log In
Follow-up On Texas PI Law For PC Techs
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jul 09, 2008 06:14 PM
from the are-you-licensed-to-look dept.
from the are-you-licensed-to-look dept.
boyko.at.netqos writes "Network Performance Daily has put out an in-depth series on the Texas law that requires private investigator licenses for computer repair techs, network analysts, and other IT professionals. It includes an interview with the author of the law, Texas Rep. Joe Driver, the captain of the Texas Private Security Bureau, RenEarl Bowie, and Matt Miller at the Institute for Justice, which is suing the state over the law. Finally, there's a series summary and editorial."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: PC Repair In Texas Now Requires a PI License 729 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Follow-up On Texas PI Law (Score:5, Funny)
They haven't made it 3 again?
Re:Follow-up On Texas PI Law (Score:5, Funny)
It would be 3.2, because everything is bigger in Texas.
Parent
Re:Follow-up On Texas PI Law (Score:4, Funny)
To bad you can't mod "-1 didn't get the joke".
Parent
Tax Dollars At Work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not about making things better, its about government control of yet another industry and increased taxes.
Parent
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as an American who generally hates the way things are and likes the way Canadians do things, I can't say that I like this. Wouldn't that be a great justification for an illegal blanket wiretapping program, if it eventually led to the prevention of a terrorist attack?
Parent
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read the "offending" section and it's clear to me that the law is aimed at requiring computer forensics investigators to have a Private Investigator's license.
In fact this law seems to be a stake in the heart of the RIAA toady Media-Sentry or WTF they call themselves today.
Parent
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. There's a concept in law whereby you can legally discover something without a warrant, if you were acting lawfully at the time.
Illegal search and seizure is a restriction placed on law enforcement. A licensed investigator is not. They are not bound by restrictions on law enforcement, nor are they bound by client/attorney privilege (unless they're working under the direction of an attorney).
If you're repairing a computer, and had a reasonable reason to look at the files, finding child porn and then reporting it is absolutely appropriate (and required by law).
You might have a case on some type of trespass law if you didn't have reason to look at the files, but it's not a violation of unlawful search.
If you're looking for a stolen document, it's perfectly permissible to find a stolen piano - it's in plain view. If you're looking for a stolen piano, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do if you find a stolen document.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly within Texas, there's what's known as the "mandatory reporter" law. For certain offenses, child abuse and child pornography among them, all persons are considered mandatory reporters. If you are aware of the offense, you are required by law to report it. Failure to do so is a criminal offense.
For other types of crimes (typically non-violent or not involving children), the mandatory reporting requirement applies only to particular agencies or classes of individuals. But in the case of child abu
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:4, Informative)
Citation: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm [state.tx.us]
Texas Family Code, Chapter 261, Subchapter B, Section 101.
Parent
Reference (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not taxes, fees. it's called rent seeking. Look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave where? Texas? That might work *today*
Ever noticed that this sort of stuff tends to spread once other states hear about the increased revenue?
Re: (Score:2)
The country.
And no, it's doesn't 'tend to spread'.
I can pick a state and find 100 crappy things that haven't 'spread to other states'
Why are you implying people won't be able to leave Texas?
Booth was a murderer.
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't, but the logic is supposed to go along the lines that (just example) if Joe GeekSquad does something dumb with your data, there's bigger repercussions at stake (e.g. Joe GeekSquad loses his bond, faces losing his license and thus his livelihood, etc etc).
Of course, it'll become a complete and utter state-sanctioned racket, just like realtor licensing and Bar (legal) licensing... you have to take certain classes, you have to pass certain tests, etc etc... all of which feeds a little cottage industry designed to teach and help certify (and here we all thought the Boot Camp was dead...)
I'm just curious as to how the frig they're ever going to enforce against those among us who build/support machines owned by family and friends.
Parent
Re:Tax Dollars At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just curious as to how the frig they're ever going to enforce against those among us who build/support machines owned by family and friends.
Selectively.
Parent
Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:5, Informative)
Read. The. Fucking. Article. A computer tech only has to be a PI if they are searching a computer for evidence of a crime.
Parent
Re:Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:5, Funny)
Never!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Never! Never William Shatner, Never.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:5, Insightful)
I did RTFA. And yes, the law was intended to work that way. Unfortunately, that's not what the law says. And since almost any work on a computer involves investigating data on that computer not accessible to the public (the user's firewall settings, for example, aren't available to the public), any such work falls under the "investigation" part and requires a PI license.
And the law will be enforced based on what it says, not on what anyone thinks it should have said instead.
Parent
Re:Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that IS what the law says. It is reasonably clear. If you are in the BUSINESS of investigating criminal acts, you need a PI license. Computer techs, unless working for a company that is in the BUSINESS of such investigation, are NOT in the business of investigating criminal acts.
That's what the author of the law said. That's what the licensing bureau chief said.
And since almost any work on a computer involves investigating data on that computer not accessible to the public (the user's firewall settings, for example, aren't available to the public), any such work falls under the "investigation" part and requires a PI license.
The section of the law that refers to "computer data not available to the public" applied only to the section of the law that defines who needs a license. It does NOT, by itself, create a new class of people who need a license. Looking at data "not available to the public" does not automatically mean you need a PI license. If you are not IN THE BUSINESS OF investigating the listed criminal or civil acts under the first section, it does not matter if what you are looking at is data "not available to the public".
The guy who enforces this law went as far as to say that a network tech who looks for a slowdown in performance and finds a virus or "theft of intellectual property" is NOT subject to this law, even though the virus may be the result of a criminal act, or the IP theft result in civil litigation.
The guy who wrote the law says computer techs are not required to have a PI license. The guy who enforces the law says they are not required to have a PI license. The LAW lists who is required to have a PI license, and "computer repair tech" is NOT in that list.
This is a publicity stunt to get money for this new institute, trying to scare people into giving them money to defend against something that a simple reading of the law -- the WHOLE law and not just one sentence -- would tell them doesn't apply to them.
And the law will be enforced based on what it says, not on what anyone thinks it should have said instead.
The person who is responsible for enforcing the law has said how it will be enforced, and people who repair computers are NOT on the list.
Stop spreading FUD. There are more important things to spend time on. There is no story here.
Parent
Re:Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:4, Insightful)
And the simple fact that we are expected to take their word for 'how the law will be enforced' is a problem all by it self.
What, really, stops them from saying that it won't affect Joe Geeksquad, and then realising that there is money to be made by licensing every computer geek? I agree, that 'investigator' has a legal meaning that is not what the populus expects, and that this law probably won't be targeting repair geeks. However, if the law is only understandable to those creating it, what makes sure that the people enforcing it also understand it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That law can easily be used to misconstrue an technician's intentions when repairing a machine.
Depending on how the prosecution/plaintiff wants to characterize the suspect technician(s) in each case, they can effectively make techs responsible for any data on any machine they serviced... whether or not they laid eyes on the data.
Why?
Because techs can't go through life censoring their actions/words such that they have nothing to do with any of the data on any of the systems they repaired. And computer forens
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, TFA only consists of interviews. If I were a Texan and repaired computers, I don't think I'd want to stake my business on what the legislator said in a news interview, as opposed to the actual letter of the law, [state.tx.us] which quite frankly is very poorly written.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says every interaction an IT person has with a computer involves some sort of "analysis and investigation" into "computer-based non-public data," i.e. examination of the state of your computer to see if it contains a virus infestation (the viruses YOU HAVE are computer-based, and not public; not to mention I'm looking at the programs you have installed because they're in my face).
What's a crime? Well, how about this? (Score:2)
If I'm supporting someone's website, and they call me and say their ISP says they're running a phishing website, and I look and find that someone's found a hole in an old CGI script and off in an obscure subdirectory there's a page that looks like the Bank of America's home page and it's set up to forward people's account information to a drop box, then it sounds like I pretty much need a PI license to do my job because that's evidence of a crime right there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you don't know what the term "phishing" refers to, because what I described finding is exactly what I described looking for: a phishing web page.
According to this bill, if you believe that your website or a website you support has been compromised, you are not legally allowed to investigate that compromise because the compromise itself is a crime, and even looking to see how it happened so you can prevent it from happening again requires a PI license under the bill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the quote is wrong.
"
(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.
"
Subsection (a)(1):
"
Re:Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:5, Informative)
Someone took a piece of the bill, misunderstood it's meaning.
No, you read the bill incorrectly: the misunderstanding is yours.
It's a bit mis-formatted, so you missed which section (a)(1) it was referring to.
The correct reference is:
If you don't believe me, look at the statute, as amended:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/OC/content/htm/oc.010.00.001702.00.htm#1702.104.00 [state.tx.us]
Subsection (a)(1)(B) casts a really wide net, when combined with the subsection (b) that was added. It's basically defining what constitutes an "investigations company", and a literal interpretation of the law as written could apply to a lot of people that aren't investigating a crime.
Yes, I know the state agency says that wasn't the intention. But, they didn't write the law. And while there are legal doctrines that provide some protection (look up "equitable estoppel"), it can be an expensive day in court to prove you were not breaking the law.
Parent
Re:Your Stupidity at Work. (Score:5, Informative)
YES, IT DOES. Yes, I'm shouting. Stop ignoring the section of the law specifically referred to by the "data not available to the public" clause. "For the purposes of" a specific section means that applies ONLY TO THAT SECTION.
THAT is a list of the reasons relevant to the collection of the data mentioned in:
The law speaks about being, first, IN THE BUSINESS OF investigating, not the business of repairing broken computers. Second, it lists the things being investigated. "Why this computer crashed" is NOT in that list. It doesn't matter if the answer is "because the owner clicked on a malware-loaded kiddie porn site", because the computer repair tech is not trying to learn if the owner clicked on a malware-loaded kiddie porn site or not, he's looking for why the computer crashed.
IF you are IN THE BUSINESS of investigating the list of crimes or civil infractions listed in the law, AND you are recovering, analyzing, AND INVESTIGATING computer data that is not available to the public towards THAT END, you need a PI license. Anything else is NOT covered by this law.
THAT is what the author says, that is what the enforcer says. End of story.
Parent
Well, (Score:2)
Due to the stereotype that computer people are antisocial and abrasive, calling them "private dicks" would have a dual meaning.
They'll change the law (Score:2)
They'll change the law because it doesn't enforce the death penalty.
I kid, I kid, y'all.
What. The. Fuck? (Score:2)
Consumers who knowingly take computers to an unlicensed company for repair can face the same penalties.
-From one of the TFA's.
So, if I lived in Texas (fat chance, but...) and I RMA'd a busted machine purchased off a smaller OEM online (and out-of-state), I can get a big fat fine and a criminal record because the OEM would probably not have a Texas PI license?
Something is definitely brain-dead in the Texas Legislature.
What is an investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the law is written such that if "investigation" were to take on the vernacular, then nearly all activities computer-related could be considered investigations. In fact, it could be taken to be as absurd as viewing the "private" page of someone on Myspace would be an investigation and thus a criminal offense. So, there is nothing controversial about the law as currently clarified by those involved in writing and enforcing it, however, with only the change in the definition of a single word to a more common usage of it, it becomes something that makes a large number of regular activities (not even just repair, but just use) illegal without a PI license.
Re:What is an investigation (Score:4, Interesting)
However, the law is written such that if "investigation" were to take on the vernacular, then nearly all activities computer-related could be considered investigations. In fact, it could be taken to be as absurd as viewing the "private" page of someone on Myspace would be an investigation and thus a criminal offense.
Therein lies the rub. If it only takes the re-interpretation of a single word to turn this the law into a clusterfusk then it's a bad law IMHO. And, it will happen. Some high profile case involving protecting a child will re-interpret the original meaning of this law and the worst will happen.
Today the law is relatively harmless. How about 10 years from now? Was the DMCA ever meant to be used the way it is now? Who ever intended drug forfeiture laws to be used to confiscate a persons inheritance because they're traveling home from the funeral with it in cash?
Most laws are probably well intended. However, it only takes one zealous prosecutor to "interpret" the law to his advantage when he wants to make an example of someone. How about facing a felony computer trespassing / hacking charges because you broke the TOS of a website like MySpace by using a fake name as in the Meier's suicide case?
It's become that a person can't wake, go about their day and retire for the evening without comiting at least one felony throughout the day. And that's scares me.
-[d]-
Parent
Over Reaction (Score:5, Informative)
Texas PI License requirements create Mobius loop (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Should result in a nice price hike (Score:4, Insightful)
And i hope you are the first customer that gets to pay the extra amount.
There will also be bonding involved too, now that they will be liable. So tack on a few more bucks to your bill.
Oh, and since the IT guy charges more, his customers will have to charge a little more to recoup. So that hair cut goes up. ( among other small business services )
And don't forget the IT guys that cant get bonded due to a shady past but are technically competent who will turn to crime to feed their families.
Still feel good about having the government interfere?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That was the lamest post ever. Yes, some prices will go up.
and what the hell is this:
"And don't forget the IT guys that cant get bonded due to a shady past but are technically competent who will turn to crime to feed their families."
You're like a cornucopia of logical fallacy!
Not that I agree with this particular state law, but there are a lot of places I like the government legislating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Need is a tricky thing.
SOme people believe we need anti- drug laws, others don't.
Some people think the change to allow women to vote was wrong.
I think your question is wrong,, and will always cause a debate.
We need to look at specific legislation and think about it, and debate on that. Even if we disagree with it, if the majority of people want it, then they are correct to legislate it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of the people don't understand the subject, for that matter neither do the legislators.
That holds true for drug laws as well btw.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the system. A new guy gets elected and he starts coming up with all sorts of laws. He puts keywords like "child porn", 'terrorist', 'safe', 'protect' that people won't vote against and then his friends add earmarks and riders.
This bullshit will sink us.
Re:Should result in a nice price hike (Score:4, Insightful)
.Even if we disagree with it, if the majority of people want it, then they are correct to legislate it, provided it doesn't violate the State and US Constitutions.
There - I fixed it for you. Majority rule does not mean minority subjugation.
Parent
Re:Should result in a nice price hike (Score:5, Funny)
And don't forget the IT guys that cant get bonded due to a shady past but are technically competent who will turn to crime to feed their families.
Are you seriously speculating on back alley disk defragmentation? What's next, a poster showing a PC tech laying on the ground with a busted PC next to him, and the phrase "NEVER AGAIN" underneath?
Parent
Re:Should result in a nice price hike (Score:5, Funny)
back alley disk defragmentation...
heh, that image cracks me up.
Hooded seller: "You disk is in order, your seektimes should be better"
Hodded buyer: "Thanks man, your a f* lifesaver"
Hodded seller: "if anyone body asks, you don't know me. You mention my name to anyone, we never do business again. Not for malware, or a browser upgrade"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is not what the law says, unless you, specifically, are IN THE BUSINESS of investigating crimes and for that purpose collect, analyze, and INVESTIGATE the data that is not generally available to the public.
You aren't. You are in the business of running a computer network. That is what you were employed to do. This sectio
I-75 (Score:4, Informative)
I work for one of the many telecom companies along I-75 in Dallas
Sorry but I-75 [i75exitguide.com] runs between Michigan and Florida and comes no where near Texas. I've lived in both states and have traveled the whole thing a number of tymes. What's in Dallas maybe something75 but not I-75 ("I" meaning Interstate and part of the interstate highway system).
Falcon
Parent