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 of fact, the LAW itself does not call them Investigators at all, it calls them "Private Detective and Security Agencies." http://www.legis.ga.gov/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=43-38-1 Even HB1259 stated it was the "private detective business." There are 23 statements in the Georgia law that are about investigators and not one of the words is used for Private Detectives. According to law.com - investigator is not a "legal" word. Neither is "Private Investigator." As another matter of fact, according to dictionary.com from Princeton University it seems that investigator applies to a more scientific process.

investigator n 1: a scientist who devotes himself to doing research [syn: research worker, researcher] 2: someone who investigates 3: a police officer who investigates crimes [syn: detective, tec, police detective].

Seems they can't even call themselves that by law. So, I guess it is even wrong to call them PI's (Private Investigators.) They should be referred to as PD's (Private Detectives.) Even when they are issued their licenses their numbers are issued as PD license numbers. It seems that computer forensics is more of a science than private detective work. It appears they are stealing our term, not us stealing theirs.

Maybe I am wrong, can anyone point me at law in Georgia that declares that they are actually called PI's legally and that we can not use that word?

Current Issues:

1: Misdemeanour Law still on books and we could be charged.
2: Investigate - the word and its clarification
3: This law will be submitted again and will again require us to be PI's.
4: How do we create our own board so we are not regulated by PI's or some other body, or do we need to be?
( I think that not being regulated is preferred due to the fact that our industry changes so quickly it will cause other problems in the future or stifle jobs/industry and creativity, etc.)
5: If this is the current status and we create something, how do we apply it to every state so that we are not limited to our own state to work without getting a PI license in every state?
6: There is also the legal issue of training. There have been several discussions I have had with other computer forensic guys and the rumour is that if computer forensics does fall under the PI License, what about training/seminars. It is currently illegal to teach any Private Investigation class without being a licensed PI Trainer. If you have to be a PI to practice then you can not teach those skills unless you are licensed. There is an entirely different process to be a licensed PI Trainer.

We need a direction. Ideas? Who wants to ramp this up? Any thoughts on how to make real progress on this issue and not just sit around talking about it?

Here is a possible direction..

The reason they have to be careful with the way they use the word Investigation is because is has different meanings in different spaces. All of them are taken very seriously.

For instance... Reporters investigate. They release their findings in the media, not present them to the courts. In this realm, it's taken seriously. For that reason, when you tell a reporter "that matter is under investigation" as opposed to "no comment", they respect it.

There is one space that we should put the laser beam on: Research

There is room for an argument about Information Security Research and Prior Restraint:

If we can present research in the public ream, we should be able to present it in court, unless it is not relevant to the court proceeding. Being forbidden to present research in public forum is not acceptable, unless it presents a direct threat to national security. In that case, it's a federal issue. Hence, this is a federal issue by default.

Scott Moulton's report of the HTCIA Meeting