Private-eye License required for computer repair?

Factual Questions
1

They just ran a local new story here in San Antonio stating that you have to have a private investigators license to do certain computer repair work.

From what I could gather from the story, a computer guy can locate the problem on your computer, and fix it, but they can’t tell you what they found wrong, how they fixed it or how the malfunction happened.

This would be “investigating”, and would be illegal without a PI license. To do this, you would have to get a PI degree and training and license. There is quite a fine involved if prosecuted.

Besides being a load of BS, I wonder if anyone else has heard of this in their state, or is it just the crazies here in Texas that came up with this?

2

Here’s an article written by an organization that is challenging the law in court.

ETA: Although I must admit the article is quite vague on what types of services allegedly require a PI’s license.

3

I suspect that some bureaucrat went apeshit when his computer told him that he’d just performed an illegal operation, and didn’t want some computer geek sending him to the clink.

4

Supplementary question: what, precisely, would be the rationale behind such a law? What problem is it addressing?

5

Laws are supposed to address problems and benefit society as a whole? When did this happen?! Someone should definitely fill in Congress on this. :wink:

6

The only thing I can imagine being related is that your average geek may be able to track down a computer intrusion, but law enforcement wouldn’t get involved if they weren’t formally trained in computer forensics or private investigation. Otherwise, I suspect the legislature is just plain nuts.

7

I don’t want to talk to the people whose computer I fix anyway. I would love to be able to say, “Sorry, I can’t tell you what’s wrong, or how I fixed it. It’s against the law. That’ll be 200 dollars , please.”

8

Here is a link to the new Texas state law the news articles are based.

The fine is $4,000 and up to a year in jail if you repair a computer without the proper credentials or if you are a potential customer seeker computer help from an unauthorized repair person.

9

I’m still not understanding: what actions? I skimmed through the statute and I don’t see anything specifically about computer repair. What am I not understanding? Is it buried in a mention of records retrieval or something?

10

This doesn’t make sense as presented in this thread.

11

It’s right there, section 22. Only authorized persons can read that section. The procedures for getting authorization are defined in section 22.

12

I know. Call me old-fashioned, but…

13

According to the law, anyone who does any of the following needs a PI license:

Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) 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;
© the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;

(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.

This seems a very important law to have for people investigating those things and is clearly not meant to mean a computer techs search through a hard drive needs a PI license. But the fear is that going through someone’s private data to find a virus or fix a problem would constitute an investigation under… (B), I assume. I think if some lunatic wanted to go after a computer tech over it, they’d never get it to stick. The tech could always claim not guilty of (1), case dismissed.

14

A friend of mine who owns a PC repair service asked me about this yesterday so I went out and did some research.

The article I found best explaining the issue was on the Daily Texan.

My understanding of the way the law would be interpreted to apply here is that for a tech to remove a virus from a computer is not a problem. For that tech to actually analyze the computer to find out when and possibly who was responsible for the infection would be a problem.

Considering that the tech’s information could potentially be used as grounds for disciplinary action or even termination of an employee, I would certainly want to make sure that the information was legally defensable.

IANAL of course, that’s just my understanding.

15

“Furnish” pretty clearly implies that the information is to be passed on to a third party - so unless you are the owner of a computer and not the user, or the user but not the owner, an unlicensed technician isn’t comitting a crime by fixing your laptop.

That said, a judge may see it differently. Especially if he’s completely batshit insane.

16

Computer shop owner checks in.

Although not specifically codified on the business side as I understand it here in CA, there are restrictions on the type and or intent of information gathering anyone can perform for a fee from the PI side.

For example, assisting a customer with installing monitoring software and instructing them in its uses would be totally legal for us. Having the monitoring logs emailed to us by the software for review and reporting back to an employer or spouse about the information we now have would fall into PI territory.

17

In the circumstances you just stated, the reason is clear to me why it’s required. Criminal cases have been challenged and thrown out when cases have hinged on incorrect assumptions by a supposed expert in computer crimes.

18

That is my take as well. The law says they have to “engage in the business” or “accepts employment” to obtain the information. In other words, they’re hired specifically to dig up the dirt. Seems exactly like what drachillix is saying from CA, and seems perfectly reasonable (to me anyway).

I haven’t read the court proceedings but I don’t see much correlation between what the Institute for Justice is saying and the law.

19

Wouldn’t this be the case for any type of repair man, then?

20

Yeah, what if the Maytag repairman tells police you’re been money-laundering?