Wednesday, March 25, 2009

North Carolina PI Licensing Update and Digital Forensics Examiner Licensing

North Carolina in is the process of updating its laws regarding computer forensics and cell phones forensics.  The change provides for a separate license for Digital Forensics Examiners.


Here is the bill sponsored by Senator Snow for the 2009-2010 session.

Amend Private Protective Services Act.

You will want to look at section 5a.

I think North Carolina has created the best model for this type of licensing as it does the most to protect the public from people claiming to be digital forensics experts while at the same time, taking into account the people who should not be required to have a license to do their jobs.

10 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The SANS forensics blog is a bit less sanguine about the bill and proposes some alterations - http://sansforensics.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/digital-forensics-professionals-might-be-required-to-become-private-investigators-via-new-licensing-amendments-in-north-carolina/. The reading of the Senate version (S584) was canceled today due to a conflict with a budget hearing. I learned from Senator Fletcher Hartsell's office (which coordinates the presentation of bills to the Senate Judiciary Committee) that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 9. You can call Senator Hartsell's office at (919) 733-7223 Thursday morning to ensure S584 will be read that day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps if they knew what they were talking about, they would be.

    Read my prior post:

    http://exforensis.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just because you disagree with their opinion, doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about.

    I think your comments are dismissive and disrespectful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't disagree with them. They do not have their facts straight. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of what is actually true. That is why I posted the links to the information they need at the bottom of their post. They are misrepresenting the legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have discussed the errors with some of those who were mentioned in the SANS post, regarding the differentiation between what they were trying to do (licensing as PI) and what they are trying to do now. True, they are not trying to license forensic examiners as PIs anymore, but there are other problems with this legislation. For example, why is the field of digital forensics being licensed under PPSB when no other forensic science is? Are there other forensic sciences that are licensed by the State? I can't find any! So, why is THIS branch of forensic science being legislated? I don't have a problem with licenses per se, just the way it's being done here.

    -previous post edited for errors-

    ReplyDelete
  8. The choice was; be licensed as a PI or create a separate license. All your points are valid, in this case, it was an either or issue.

    In my position paper I recommended licensing for other forensic sciences, if you want to call some of them that.

    The board decided to only deal with this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In some of the minutes that have been posted around regarding the requirements of what PPSB would require, I've found the following:

    "It determined that there would be the following:

    A. Standard Background Investigation
    B. Verification of Experience (3 years)
    C. Software must be approved with certificate presented to the applicant.
    D. There would be a grandfather clause.
    E. We will need to determine if college credits will receive experience credit."

    I think of great interest (and objection) here, is clause C. At what point in any other field (not only forensics) does a licensing body APPROVE the tools that can be used in the performance of ones duties? To what extent could this be drawn out?

    What is it that started the PPSB down this road? It just seems a little odd.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clause C did not translate properly in the minutes. It is supposed to read, "Certification from at least one body, including major software vendors. (i.e. Encase ENCE) We argued for a vendor neutral certification to be required, specifically CCE, but the sub-committee members decided to accept any certification, including those of the major software vendors.

    ReplyDelete

I have moderated my comments due to spam.