More states are moving toward laws that limit computer forensics work to those with Private Investigator licenses, or people contracted to work for licensed investigative agencies.
Pending legislation in South Carolina would limit the specialist work of capturing and making sense of evidence on computer discs and server logs to businesses whose main line of work is serving legal process or matrimonial investigations. The bill covers computers forensic evidence presented in court.
Computer evidence compiled by unlicensed practitioners would be excluded from admission in either civil or criminal cases under the regulation. Those caught practicing without a license to collect evidence for court (though not on a private basis) could face criminal prosecution.
Enterprises or private individuals would still be free to hire anyone they choose for private investigations. Computer forensics is often used as an internal investigatory tool following computer intrusions, or in response to suspicion of staff misuse of internet resources.
Georgia, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington already have similar legislation, Baseline Magazine reports. The idea is that by restricting the preparation of computer forensics work for presentation in court promotes higher standards and keeps out the cowboys.
However, expecting computer forensics experts to have a PI license makes about as much sense as requiring PIs to have computer science degrees. Most private investigators come from a police or forces background. The regulations smack of protectionism.
Commonly, specialist agencies handle IT-related work such as counter-surveillance and forensic examination. Data recovery firms and others with computer forensics expertise may be equally capable in preserving and processing computer evidence, but are locked out of the business in the US, unlike other countries such as the UK where such firms are typically swamped with work.
I support restrictive legislation requiring licensure for computer forensic specialists, for the following reasons:
1) All evidence is information subject to the Rules of Evidence, and examination, under oath (in and out of court), by attorneys for the Plaintiff and Defendant, as well as judges and juries. Also subject to the same examination are Plaintiffs, Defendants, Witnesses, Experts, and, the Forensic Evidence Technicians who obtained or discovered tangible evidence. Including their methods and records of care, custody and control of the discovery. This worthy, cumbersome (and some would erroneously say “flawed”) system (when applied properly) protects everyone, including plaintiffs and defendants from violations of the basic rights, freedoms and laws under the Constitution of The United States of America. Period.
2) Computer Forensics is a science-based discovery of “Electronic DNA” and is (and should be) subject to the same science-based scrutiny as the discovery of hair, prints, blood, tissue, fiber, tool-marks, tire-tracks etc. Period.
3) Large Fee Structures (upwards of $3.5K to $6.5K per hard drive) now common to the Computer Forensics arena (and the PI business) attract unscrupulous and mercenary quick-buck artists, many of whom, despite the flawed assumptive reasoning in the article, have no formal training in police procedure, computer forensics, criminal or civil procedure, or the rules of evidence. Charging a lot of money does not an Expert qualify. Nor should it. Period.
4) We’ve seen civil ATTORNEYS try to take short cuts. And many is the unsuspecting or naive plaintiff or defendant who wants to save money. They call the guy who fixed their daughter’s computer. Or they and a buddy rummage through the hard drive and print out information which is not relevant or discoverable under the rules of evidence (or sometimes manufacture evidence, or visit internet sites and add that to the hard drive), thereby contaminating it, while writing new info to the hard drive. This is a violation of every basic tenet of the Rules of Evidence. Period.
5) We have seen, over the past four years, a number of people trying to save money by hiring so-called “computer technicians” who fit in the same category. Many of these self-styled, so-called “Computer Forensic Examiners” also have NO formal police or military training. And cannot afford to take the time or the training necessary to do so. That attitude is unprofessional & dangerous. Period.
6) Serious and true professionals rarely object to licensure and regulatory action which protects their own years of training and experience and the public. Most resistance to legislation, in my 17 years of experience, derives from the weenie-wavers, half-smokes, ne’er-do-wells, quick-buck artists and mercenaries who are enamored of getting something for nothing. Period.
As a Son Of The American Revolution, as a Registered and Licensed PI in VA with a solid professional reputation for doing the right thing and upholding our flawed system, I invite your comments and critiques.
Robert Chapman
Senior Investigator
Advanced Investigations
nhabedoc70@verizon.net
Comment by Doc Chapman — January 11, 2008 @ 3:13 am