I think that's the point. The courts (in Texas) don't wanna hear from Joe Blo from the corner PC shop anymore because his "evidence" never holds up and wastes everyone's time and resources.
Originally Posted by Re@lity
Surely "evidence" gained by a local PC shop repair guy would hardly constitute admissible evidence!?
What about following the correct protocols, chain of evidence, etc?
It's not just a purchase, there's a whole apprenticeship thing, etc. But yes you're right PI != IT Forensics Expert.
Does purchasing a PI license make you a trained/qualified digital forensic investigator now?:eek:
I completely agree.
It should be, that if you're going to submit evidence in a case, then your tech had better have a PI license, but it should not be required that every tech have one.
The problem is that the Government (or well the court/lawyers) gets to define "investigation" as anything they wish (as long as they convince the judge/jury). As one of the articles states: "The definition of “investigation” is very broad and encompasses many common computer repair tasks." Personally I would have worded it ".....and CAN encompass...." but you get the idea.
Did anyone actually read the law before ranting about it? H.B. No. 2833, Sec. 1702.104 (b) is very specific to "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."