Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

MemeStreams Discussion

search


This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Scott Moulton's report of the HTCIA Meeting. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Scott Moulton's report of the HTCIA Meeting
by Rattle at 4:58 pm EDT, May 9, 2006

The following is from Scott Moulton, who was at the HTCIA meeting in Atlanta on Monday. A full copy of this can be found on forensiclicensing.com.

This meeting yesterday was somewhat contradictory. On one hand, the meeting was started by claiming that none of the people in the room were affected by this new law and that we are not PI's. But that seemed to change within a few minutes to all of us being affected and that it does apply to us.

It seemed apparent from the meeting yesterday they intend to push this PI bill though again. Many of the items in the PI bill are good for other reasons. Just not for anyone that practices any kind of "investigation" that is we did not consider a PI. Very graciously John Villines and Calvin Hill agreed to work with a committee from "our community" to get the correct verbiage in the bill with regards to our industry. Their point seemed to be that the PI bill was going to include us and that we would all somehow still have to be PI's but kind of be on our own terms if we help with the verbiage. Further questioning did not seem to clarify this. It seems that adding computer components to the PI exams was considered a "specialty" and was opposed when suggested to John C. Villines and Calvin Hill. It seemed clear that the qualifications for what it takes to become a PI were going to stay in place with regards to testing, training and educational hours. They stated that items for new laws need to be complete around the September time frame so that they can be submitted in February for new laws to be considered and that they were going to go ahead with this and submit it again. Our choice was to work with them on the wording.

It was also very apparent from statements made that under the current law that the misdemeanour still stands and that they were not offering any way to indemnify anyone during this time period that these issues need to be worked out and the law rewritten. They did claim that it was very unlikely anyone would be sought out for this issue being that it is a misdemeanour.

When it was suggested that we could create our own Professional Licensing board, it was pointed out to us that it would probably never happen. It was suggested by, I believe Calvin Hill, that we pick a board we fit best under and work with that board to get established and regulated under that board, and that it was unlikely with the current political system we have that we would be successful in setting up our own board.

RESEARCH ON "INVESTIGATOR"
The word "Investigator or investigation" seems to be a very big issue with PI's. Calling anything Forensic Investigation or a Computer Forensic Investigation are words that are subject to scrutiny as if Private Investigators as if PI's own the word investigate.

As matter... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]


 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics