Should Computer Forensics Experts be Licensed Private Investigators? Posted By Daniel Kaiser, Esq. on April 8, 2011
State jurisdictions are still split on the question, but Virginia says No.
States such as South Carolina contend that the computer forensics industry attracts a flow of contenders eager to cash in on lucrative disputes; contenders that may very well be expert in pulling information from a computer, and yet might be ignorant of the ethics and standards involved in handling personal information. These jurisdictions hold that computer forensics experts should be held to the same standards (including licensing and insurance coverage) as any other investigation agent or agency. Whether the motivation here is truly privacy oriented or fiscal, in effect this adds a number of hoops to jump through. The wide majority of states (including the District of Columbia) require a state-administered license in order to become a private investigator. While the requirements for this license aren’t particularly difficult, they usually include at least a certificate in criminal justice, hours of training, and a state administered exam. This state vetting process creates certain legal exemptions, easing access to personal information.
Be that as it may, computer forensics practices rely more upon expertise in Information Systems than anything-gumshoe. In the context of litigation, computer forensics can be held to professional standards in more ways than one… and this is the position recently taken by the state of Virginia.
Virginia recently signed into law HB 2271 (Computer and digital forensic services; exempt from regulation as private security service business). As introduced, this law:
Exempts from regulation as a private security service business any individual engaged in (i) computer or digital forensic services or in the acquisition, review, or analysis of digital or computer-based information, whether for purposes of obtaining or furnishing information for evidentiary or other purposes or for providing expert testimony before a court, or (ii) network or system vulnerability testing, including network scans and risk assessment and analysis of computers connected to a network.
This is a question that the states have been kicking around for several years now. If this takes hold it could prevent an army of eDiscovery gumshoes! Probably a good thing.
nothing to say.
Post A Comment