Texas PC repair now requires PI license!

This is rather unbelievable - unfortunately, it's not a joke...

The Texas legislature has decided that computer repair folks need a government-issued PI (Private Investigator) license when performing what the state calls "an investigation." If a computer repair person is analyzing data on a customer's computer, this would fall under "an investigation", and without a PI license he or she could face up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine. Additionally, any customer knowingly enlisting an unlicensed repair person's help is subject to the same fines.

Unless the repair is purely hardware-related (a blown PSU, for example), even looking at error logs could be (and if the Texas Private Security Board has its way, will and/or already is) interpreted as "an investigation", and the fines will apply. I have not yet received a notice from the TPSB (I have a registered computer repair business in Texas); a small number of my competitors has been informed by the TPSB that they need to either stop doing computer repair, or shut down their business until they have acquired the necessary licenses. To get the license, one needs either a criminal justice degree or complete a three-year apprenticeship under a licensed PI.

I'm all for regulating an industry (currently, computer repair folks in the US do not need any kind of certification or license, making it one of the few professional sectors that don't), but this is a bridge too far. Maybe they'll also start requiring car repair people to be licensed PI's? After all, a car contains "private data" (odometer readings, for example), and working on it may be constituted as "performing an investigation"...

The Texas State Bill in question

Institute for Justice case description

I was reading this this morning and was in shock... What I don't get is how no one noticed this before now? It was enacted in 2007...

Hmmmmm,

Quote:

---

AN ACT

relating to the licensing and regulation of certain private
security services.

---

That seems pretty clear cut to me, and my response would be:

"Thank you for your communication of xx/xx/xxxx, which appears to have been sent to me in error.

I operate a computer hardware and software sales, upgrade and repair business.

I do not provide "certain private security services", in fact, I do not provide any private security services as described in the Act.

In particular I do not conduct forensic investigations, or repair computers dedicated to managing security functions such as CCTV and access control."

CC:

Texas State DOJ
Senator: xxxxxxxxx
Congressmen: xxxxxxxxx
The Editor, all major state newspapers. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To the CCs I would add a covering letter to the effect that the TPSB seem to be taking it upon themselves to make laws or at the very least interpret them without the guidance of the courts.

Never underestimate how pissed these guys get when someone trespasses on their turf :D

Nice one there Nihil

I need some letters written, you must help out :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HTRegz

I was reading this this morning and was in shock... What I don't get is how no one noticed this before now? It was enacted in 2007...

---

You know how slow the mail can be.

"The check is in the post" :rofl:

HT~ has a good point though, so I looked a bit further.

If you read the Bill, it has all the sorts of things that you would expect. Various levels of acreditation, people who are excluded (criminal records, dishonourable discharge...) people who are exempt (lawyers & accountants) and so on. Even handgun proficiency requirements :eek:

No mention of computers anywhere.

I would say that the legislators knew exactly what they meant and it does not seem controversial to me at least. It passed both houses unopposed (yes I checked the votes).

The TPSB seem to have taken it upon themselves to try to extend the law beyond its original intentions, which is why they have to be challenged. After all they are neither elected representatives of the people nor members of the Judiciary?

Quote:

---

I looked a bit further. [...]
No mention of computers anywhere.

---

Que? I think you didn't look far enough, nihil ;)

Here are the relevant parts of the bill on which the TPSB base their case:

Quote:

---

80(R) HB 2833

A person acts
as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or
furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
[...]
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person;

[...]

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or
furnishing information includes 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.

---

Unfortunately, under this law, the TPSB have a very good case.

Computer repair folks can obtain information about the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person through review and analysis of computer-based data that is not available to the public. If they can, they need a PI license as spelled out in the bill. Whether this was the intent of the law or not remains to be seen; the TPSB seem to think it is, and I can't really blame them, as I think the law's pretty clear. The Institute for Justice also interpret the law that way (that's why they're fighting it).

According to the Dallas Morning News, "Apparently the PI lobby persuaded the law makers to classify the investigation of data on a hard drive to be only done by licensed private investigators," which, if true, would mean that it is the intent of the law to require that computer repair folks need a PI license.

More from the DMN article:

Quote:

---

So, let's say you take your computer into Joe's Computer Repair and ask him why your computer runs so slow. He looks on your hard drive and finds viruses in your email or spyware in your kid's IM program -- apparently that's an investigation of private data and is now against the law if Joe is not a licensed PI.

And it's also apparently illegal for YOU, the consumer to bring your computer for repair to a shop that does not employ a licensed PI.

---

I would bet that it only applies if you use the information
in the context of an investigation. If you clean out the viruses
and get the computer working, there is no "investigation".

If, in the course of fixing a computer, you stumble upon
evidence of wrongdoing, you are not qualified, and therefore
not permitted to pass that info on to a third party because
you don't have a PI license.

We wouldn't want "repair shop vigilantes" going around
accusing people of everything under the sun when they
really haven't demonstrated any forensic skills,
and haven't followed proper procedures (and haven't
paid for a license)
:cool:

Let's hope so... the lawsuit seems to center around what exactly constitutes "an investigation." Maybe installing a driver doesn't fall under that, but what about the family that lost all its baby pictures? Am I performing an investigation when I try to recover that data? The PI lobby sure seems to think so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Negative

Let's hope so... the lawsuit seems to center around what exactly constitutes "an investigation." Maybe installing a driver doesn't fall under that, but what about the family that lost all its baby pictures? Am I performing an investigation when I try to recover that data? The PI lobby sure seems to think so...

---

Neg, would "Data Recovery" be considered an "Investigation"? It is simple data recovery, I personally would have a problem with someone telling me it is an "Investigation". :rolleyes:

Cheers:

So would I. It's a misuse of the word. To investigate means to seek information for some purpose. Data recovery isn't seeking information, it's retrieving it and with no particular agenda other than to save the info from being lost.

How about the "review and analysis" part? Laws are always open for interpretation, and I believe the Institute for Justice is right in being extremely concerned about what exactly this law is trying to enforce. If the DMN article is correct (in stating that the law was enacted under pressure of the PI lobby), then it's not too far-fetched to assume that the law can be used against a non-licensed computer repair guy trying to recover some pictures...

Yea, but what are we really talking about? Family pictures or a corrupt database file, they are both a bunch of 1's and 0's. It's just data recovery!

Cheers:

Hmmm,

Depends on how you use English in Texas?:D

Quote:

---

(1) engages in the business of obtaining or
furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
[...]
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person;

---

I don't know about you, but I don't engage in the business of or accept employment to do any of that. It is not a part of computer repair.

Quote:

---

Computer repair folks can obtain information about the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person through review and analysis of computer-based data that is not available to the public.

---

The ones in blue are bullcrap, you don't get them off a computer, or only partially.

OK, so I have the equipment to be a rapist, so I can do it.......... will I get charged?

"Can" isn't "Did", and "Did" is impossible to prove. Over here, you would (under due process) have to provide evidence that the act took place, motive and opportunity................. and opportunity isn't enough on its own (hence my rape analogy).

Am I the only person who smells the aroma of decaying rodent here?

We have this DMN outfit who have just opened a new branch in Texas......... and they are immediately involved in a high profile, high publicity battle that they are certain to win? *cough* *cough*

HTRegz put me onto that one........... this has been on the statute books for over a year, why has it "suddenly" (and conveniently?) come to light?:rolleyes:

Another thing, what about this marvellous "Constitution of the United States of America" I have heard tell of?

Are you telling me that a private citizen is not allowed to take his computer to anyone he likes to have it repaired?

What about your anti-trust laws, as this legislation is blatantly an unreasonable restriction on trade?

And isn't an individual given the right to give his permission for someone else to at least view his personal details? If not I guess Texas is about to revert back to barter and cash only?

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, under this law, the TPSB have a very good case.

---

I don't think so, nor do I think that the Supreme Court or Washington will?

This is highly concerning as a Texan myself. I had actually considered starting my own computer repair gig for a while. Glad I haven't!

But I'm confused...Wouldn't this law shut down every single IT business in Texas? So far I don't know any IT guys out here running around with PI licenses, so business is going as usual. Wouldn't this bring the Texas IT industry to a grinding halt until we all acquired Criminal Justice degrees?

:rolleyes:

what's next? what? i cannot remove these viruses and spyware from my pc because it is evidence of criminal activity? need if hire a PI to track down these wrongdoers else i become the evil one?

What will they come up with next?

ugghhh...

:rolleyes:

Angelic > Almost all larger computer repair shops in Texas have employees with PI licenses.

Quote:

---

Nihil
I don't know about you, but I don't engage in the business of or accept employment to do any of that. It is not a part of computer repair.

---

I do. As soon as a customer brings me a harddrive to recover data from, and that data contains personal information, I am clearly engaged in the business of doing exactly what that law is talking about (I "accept employment to obtain information related to the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person." - almost all of the computers I work on have personal information on them (resumes are pretty popular around here!) - you trying to highlight some of those in blue that you think can't be obtained from a computer is irrelevant to that (and I don't agree that you can't, for example, learn a whole lot about someone's habits from looking through his computer). We're not talking about "hardware repairs" here.

Quote:

---

We have this DMN outfit who have just opened a new branch in Texas......... and they are immediately involved in a high profile, high publicity battle that they are certain to win? *cough* *cough*

---

The DMN is the Dallas Morning News. Dallas is in Texas, and has been for quite a while. The DMN has been in Dallas for quite a while, too ;) You're probably referring to the Institute for Justice.

Quote:

---

this has been on the statute books for over a year, why has it "suddenly" (and conveniently?) come to light?

---

Because law folks don't know anything about computers, and computer folks don't read laws. This only came to light when the TPSB apparently actually started using the law.

The author of the law says that it "only applies to those who retrieve data for the purposes of analysis to create a report for a third party", the TPSB says it only applies to "data retrieval for a potential civil or criminal matter." Two totally different interpretations, all because - again - that law is as vague as they come. How is a computer repair person to know what the retrieved data is going to be used for? I can retrieve and analyze data, but not put it into a report? I can retrieve and analyze data and write a report on it, but only when it's not going to be used in court (which I can't know beforehand)?

Quote:

---

Angelic > Almost all larger computer repair shops in Texas have employees with PI licenses.

---

I'm referring to the smaller ones primarily. I worked for an IT outsourcing company up until last year, of whom no one possessed a PI license. As far as I'm aware they're still up in business.

Quote:

---

The author of the law says that it "only applies to those who retrieve data for the purposes of analysis to create a report for a third party", the TPSB says it only applies to "data retrieval for a potential civil or criminal matter."

---

None of which applies to computer repair or data retrieval.

It is a question of "intent" and "purpose" rather than activity.

The "gathering of evidence" is quite distinct from "data recovery"

:)

Intent and purpose are hard to proof.

Sure they are, but we're not dealing with the need to prove an act that has taken place, we are dealing with the definition of a word. It's not investigation, its recovery. Now if there's some reason to question a particular instance, then you have to deal with evidence/proof.

Yes, I think that the "PI Lobby" are aiming at what rcgreen described as repair shop vigilantes?

Computer repair technicians are quite capable of diagnosing problems and recovering data.................. they are not qualified (unless licensed) to assemble evidence, or engage in the process of evidence discovery.

Quote:

---

I do. As soon as a customer brings me a harddrive to recover data from, and that data contains personal information, I am clearly engaged in the business of doing exactly what that law is talking about

---

No you are not, and, if you are professional about it (like you want to do it quickly because time is money) you don't even look at what the data are.

Quote:

---

Intent and purpose are hard to proof.

---

Exactly, the onus of proof lies with the accuser not the accused............ well we still have that rule in the EU, except perhaps for KP cases?

Before I continue I want to say I'm not a fan of wholesale government intervention.

A lot of trades that involve security (physical), finance and people's privacy require some sort of bonding or licensing. A CPA who knows someone is "cooking the books" can lose his licensing if he doesn't report it. In some states, any security guard that carries a weapon has to be deputized.

So what does this law do besides create an extra hurdle to someone wanting to repair a computer:

It stops the repair vigilante from blowing the whistle on you, unless they are certified. It also stops someone from blackmailing you if they find something naughty, a complaint from you would put them in hot water on their licensing.

It prohibits someone from making searches of your data unless they are licensed.

In the process of getting the PI license you are instructed about what evidence you must turn over and how not to screw up the evidence to prevent use in court of real law enforcement types.

So in a crux, how much $ do you have to spend to get a license, sounds like a resume filler to me.

I don't think it's so much about whether or not this creates a hardship for repair people, the issue as I see it is gov. interference based on a false premise.

Hmmm,

Quote:

---

A lot of trades that involve security (physical), finance and people's privacy require some sort of bonding or licensing.

---

Computer repairs don't fall into any of those categories.

Also, what about disclosure by banks, attorneys, doctors? Either they are privileged or need a subpoena/court order. Unless I give them instructions otherwise............. so what has happened to my Constitutional rights here? apparently I can be punished for exercising my right to chose whom I wish to repair my computer, and give them my authorisation to do so?

A computer tech is not involved in gathering information about third parties for criminal, matrimonial or civil lawsuits. That is right and proper as they are not trained to.................. it would be akin to visiting a backstreet abortionist in my book. Both parties would be guilty, which is what this law (or the letter of it) says to me.

Quote:

---

It stops the repair vigilante from blowing the whistle on you, unless they are certified.

---

Somehow I doubt that, although it does seem to look like it at first. The problems that I have are:

1. Repair vigilantism can be legalised.
2. A person discovering evidence of a criminal offence cannot report it to the proper authorities, as they are legally required to?

Quote:

---

It also stops someone from blackmailing you if they find something naughty, a complaint from you would put them in hot water on their licensing.

---

Sorry ddddc, that one I cannot accept. What is the penalty for blackmail (a felony I would have thought?) as opposed to some petty licence infringement? If you are going to complain, you will go for the felony rap?:D

Quote:

---

It prohibits someone from making searches of your data unless they are licensed.

---

And some scumbag Texican quango can licence a turd-for-brains to search my data? without my consent? and without court permission?:rolleyes:

Again, what if I ask someone to search my data or give them permission to access it?

Quote:

---

In the process of getting the PI license, you are instructed about what evidence you must turn over, and how not to screw up the evidence (collection process) to prevent its use in court by real law enforcement types.

---

And the relevance of that to computer repair is exactly what?

I don't look at data on a computer with a view to a court appearance.......... I am looking to repair it and get paid?

@ JPNyc:

Quote:

---

I don't think it's so much about whether or not this creates a hardship for repair people, the issue as I see it is gov. interference based on a false premise.

---

Actually this is not government as I see it, this is some unconstitutional, unelected shower, of "regulators" trying to gouge income for their members, or powerbase?

I can see over the horizon............ "well you want to repair computers in Texas? tell you what, you pay me $xxxxx, and I will put you on my license"

"And the thirteen days of glory at the seige of Alamo"

Those guys must be turning in their graves?

Nihil,

Someone asks me to repair his computer because it won't boot or it's slow.

During the process of this I find a bunch of kiddie porn. If I report the guy, I'm a narc. If I don't I'm an accessory.

Licensing is a minor nuisance.

ddddc,

Quote:

---

In the southern part of Texas, near the town of San Antone

Like a statue on his pinto, rides a cowboy all alone

And he sees the cattle grazin', where a century before

Santa Anna's guns were blazin', and the cannon used to roar

And his eyes turn sorta misty as his heart begins to glow

And he takes his hat off slowly...to the men of Alamo


To the thirteen days of glory...at the siege of Alamo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now the bugles are silent, and there's rust on each sword

And the small band of soldiers, lie asleep in the arms of the Lord

---

Sometimes I feel that traditions should transcend political and money grubbing sleaze?

I used to think that Texas was "cleaner" than Washington DC................

:confused:

Nihil,

The US Constitution, the basis of all of our laws, is a living document, it can be changed and amended and it has been since its inception. Recently our Supreme Court overturned an absolute handgun ban in Washington DC reaffirming the 2nd amendment in doing so.

If someone cared enough about the Texas law they could appeal for change, I just checked and it looks like a PI license in Texas is $33. Like I said, a minor nuisance.

You can only get a license with a criminal justice degree or by doing a 3-year apprenticeship with a registered PI, though...

I agree with Negative, in that it is obviously a money gouging "jobs for the lads" scam.

Perhaps Washington are going to have to advise the Commonwealth (extra wealth if you are a PI) of Texas as to the Constitution of the United States of America?

They can always secceed if they want, but we all know what happened last time, and Texas certainly doesn't have a politician of the calibre of Jefferson Davis :cool:

I'm not gonna get too wrapped up in Texas laws. Look at what Texas has already given us: George W and the "Leave no child's behind" sorry "Leave no child behind" education package.

Like I said however, if they ever actually charge someone the ACLU or the EFF can pick up the case and take it to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fourdc

I'm not gonna get too wrapped up in Texas laws. Look at what Texas has already given us: George W and the "Leave no child's behind" sorry "Leave no child behind" education package.

---

Hey don't blame us. Blame the electoral college.

Wow what a load of crap this could turn into. I run my own repair shop and this could turn into a bit if a headache. If I catch any heat I will be touching base with the ACLU on this. FWIW I know that I have done investigations for customers when they thought their husbands were cheating on them for example... but it was only between the customer and myself. But for regular computer repair, my plan would be to play ignorant and avoid mention of any delving into the OS. Like was previously mentioned though, those of us who are busy rarely will take a look at any info on the drive, as we want to get to the next thing.

Hi Tex, and welcome to AO.

It is interesting to hear your personal take on this as you are certainly in the firing line, so to speak.

Quote:

---

FWIW I know that I have done investigations for customers when they thought their husbands were cheating on them for example... but it was only between the customer and myself.

---

I guess that is the scenario that this legislation was really aimed at? As I see it, you are supposed to be doing it under the supervision of a licenced practitioner................. or an exempt person such as a lawyer or accountant? Otherwise you must be licenced yourself.

I am pretty sure that over here, any evidence that I recovered independently would be considered contaminated, and therefore worthless.

When it comes to computer "repair" there really isn't any need to look at any truly "personal" data.

Quote:

---

my plan would be to play ignorant and avoid mention of any delving into the OS.

---

The actual raw OS or application does not normally contain any personal data either, unless you go out of your way to look for it, in places you don't really need to go to for maintenance or repair purposes.

When it comes to data recovery, I just take a quick look to see that it has worked within expectations. Certainly not what would constitute evidence gathering or "discovery" in a legal sense. In this part of the World, customers won't pay for any more. They know what the specialist recovery guys charge and will come to me to see if there is a quick (read "cheap") fix :D

To be perfectly honest, I am not so much worried about what I might find, but what might be found by the authorities on a customer's machine on my premises.:eek:

I am interested in US legislation simply because you guys are way ahead of us in actually having legislation............. and stuff like that tends to drift across the Pond?

Cheers

Look, someone made the consumerist...

http://consumerist.com/tag/computer-...sted-computers

Quote:

---

"This law will drive up the price of computer repair for everyone, and that’s exactly what the private investigations industry wants."

---

Uh....why? What's the PI industry got against the PC repair industry??

The whole issue simply started because of the vague wording of the law. All law is open for interpretation, but this one sure is doing a good job of taking that concept to the next level. This is not about how any of us interpret this law; it's about the not-so-far-fetched possibility that someone (ab)uses this law to make a case against, say, an unlicensed computer repair person who was asked by someone to recover the contents of "his" hard drive, only to find out later that it wasn't actually his.

The law states that

Quote:

---

A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:

(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:

(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;

(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;

---

While many here have argued that, when I do some data recovery on a computer (even if the owner is the legitimate owner), I am not "engaging in the business of obtaining information related to the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person", I believe there's a strong case that can be made that that's exactly what I'm doing. How is recovering, say, someone's resume not "obtaining information related to the identity, business, occupation, knowledge, location..." of a person? Isn't that exactly what it is?

Also, there's a difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. In this case, the letter of the law is open for interpretation, as is the spirit. Rather than the author of the law trying to clarify to the press what he meant by it, why not amend the law to at least reduce the confusion and possibility of misinterpretation (whatever the intended interpretation was in the first place).

I am inclined to accept this view (from the lawmakers):

Quote:

---

The author of the bill, Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, told the Houston Chronicle that computer techs are misinterpreting the law and that the lawsuit is simply a publicity stunt by The Institute for Justice.

The lawsuit marked the launch of the group’s Texas chapter. [As I suggested in an earlier post ]


Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, agreed the new law probably is being misread.


“It needs some tightening up and some clarification, but I have been assured that they will be very cautious about enforcing it,” Hilderbran said.


“(Driver’s) intent was that this rule only be used when analyzing data for investigative purposes.”


An e-mail sent to Hilderbran from DPS states that “only computer forensics officials must be licensed under the Private Security Act” and that those who only retrieve information from computer databases and pass it on to another person are not subject to the new law.

---

Quote:

---

to make a case against, say, an unlicensed computer repair person who was asked by someone to recover the contents of "his" hard drive, only to find out later that it wasn't actually his.

---

Provided that you practice due diligence you will be OK. These days a computer is just another domestic appliance or consumer durable. If I take a microwave or a TV to be repaired I don't have to prove ownership.

Now, if I took a rifle or a shotgun to be repaired I most certainly would have to produce my license (UK laws here folks). The guns are licenced, computers are not.

Anyway, wouldn't you notice if there was nothing wrong with the HDD?.................. I would, which is when I would make the telephone call. ;)

Quote:

---

How is recovering, say, someone's resume not "obtaining information related to the identity, business, occupation, knowledge, location..." of a person? Isn't that exactly what it is?

---

Well a resume or curriculum vitae is doubtless covered in the "public knowledge" exclusion. Anything else, and it would be a "confession" :lildevil: Resumes are intended to be broadcast, and once you send one, it is no longer your property but is effectively in the public domain, unless the recipient decides otherwise. That is how recruitment agencies work.............. just read the small print;)

That still leaves the fact that you are not obtaining information; merely attempting to recover that which is already there.

I still haven't heard a reasonable argument against my contention that your personal information is yours to do what you like with, and to employ whomsoever you like to recover.

Provided that I exercise due diligence, as mentioned above, I cannot be held responsible if the customer is not the rightful owner. The products are not registered so I have no way of knowing?

I do not see how having a PI(mp)'s licence exonerates me in any way :bigpimp:................. as an investigator, I should have looked into that?

Quote:

---

make a case against, say, an unlicensed computer repair person who was asked by someone to recover the contents of "his" hard drive, only to find out later that it wasn't actually his.

---

Reminds me of the time I recovered the p/w and data on a Bank of America client machine...

guy walks into store...
"hey I lost my password, can you recover it for me? While your at it can you back up my drive..."

I say sure... yank drive and b/u... then boot to p/w boot disk and reset admin acct, boots up to the desktop. First thing I see is a BOA logo on the desktop. I immediately kill the box and get on the phone...

BOA Lady on other end didn't even know a box was missing, come to find out the guy jacked it when they were doing a building remodel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted By nihil
"To be perfectly honest, I am not so much worried about what I might find, but what might be found by the authorities on a customer's machine on my premises."

---

So this ties back to your liability potentially would be much higher when you have say, a stolen computer from a financal institution on your property that you just hacked into and recovered the data from. I believe this might relate to what they are aiming at, which is to lock down the procedures if this happens and what steps to take if you accidentially process stolen merchandise.

Now that I work for a financial institution I know that there are reporting laws that are in place that BOA didn't follow that day in regards to a computer being stolen that could have contained user information. (I didn't look) Assuming I was a private investigator I would probably be required to report this incident to the authorities vs. just acting like it never happened....

Thanks for the welcome... more thanks to irongeeks website for the link over :cool:

Hi Tex, I am also worried about the possession of IT kit with criminal content.

What we all really need is Mr. Plod to come round and seize all our kit.......... including that belonging to legitimate clients? Like that puts you out of business forever?

No wonder zero-fill and reinstall is so popular :D