Quote Originally Posted by Re@lity View Post
What court would accept digital forensic evidence from someone who is not a trained/qualified forensic investigator?
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.

Surely "evidence" gained by a local PC shop repair guy would hardly constitute admissible evidence!?
It shouldn't

What about following the correct protocols, chain of evidence, etc?

Does purchasing a PI license make you a trained/qualified digital forensic investigator now?
It's not just a purchase, there's a whole apprenticeship thing, etc. But yes you're right PI != IT Forensics Expert.

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.
I completely agree.
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."
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.