Texas PC Repair Now Requires PI License

scheistermeisterscheistermeister Member Posts: 748 ■□□□□□□□□□
Give a man fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Comments

  • dynamikdynamik Banned Posts: 12,312 ■■■■■■■■■□
    (1) licenses investigations companies and security
    services contractors;
    (2) issues commissions to certain security officers;
    (3) issues authorizations to certain security
    officers engaged in the personal protection of individuals;
    (4) registers:
    (A) certain individuals connected with a license
    holder; and
    (B) certain individuals employed in a field
    connected to private investigation or private security; and
    (5) regulates license holders, security officers, and
    registrants under this chapter.
    (b) Chapter 53 does not apply to this chapter or to any
    licensing, regulatory, or disciplinary determinations made under
    this chapter.
    SECTION 2. Subchapter E, Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, is
    amended by adding Section 1702.085 to read as follows:
    Sec. 1702.085. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. Records
    maintained by the department under this chapter on the home
    address, home telephone number, driver's license number, or social
    security number of an applicant or a license holder, registrant, or
    security officer commission holder are confidential and are not
    subject to mandatory disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code.
    SECTION 3. Section 1702.102(a), Occupations Code, is
    amended to read as follows:
    (a) Unless the person holds a license as a security services
    contractor, a person may not:
    (1) act as an alarm systems company, armored car
    company, courier company, guard company, [or] guard dog company,
    locksmith company, or private security consultant company;
    (2) offer to perform the services of a company in
    Subdivision (1); or
    (3) engage in business activity for which a license is
    required under this chapter.
    SECTION 4. Section 1702.104, Occupations Code, is amended
    to read as follows:
    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;
    (C) 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;
    (2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
    employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board,
    officer, or investigating committee;
    (3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
    employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an
    individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice
    purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
    (4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts
    employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the
    use of a personal protection officer.

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm

    Maybe it's just me, but that looks beyond the scope of computer repair. I don't have time to analyze the whole thing, so someone let me know if I'm wrong.
  • jryantechjryantech Member Posts: 623
    icon_confused.gif: icon_confused.gif: icon_confused.gif:
    "It's Microsoft versus mankind with Microsoft having only a slight lead."
    -Larry Ellison, CEO, Oracle

    Studying: SCJA
    Occupation: Information Systems Technician
  • scheistermeisterscheistermeister Member Posts: 748 ■□□□□□□□□□
    (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:

    (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.

    That sounds similar to looking for a virus or spyware to me.
    Give a man fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  • SieSie Member Posts: 1,195
    Im glad I find these things straight forward:
    Chapter 53 does not apply to this chapter or to any
    licensing, regulatory, or disciplinary determinations made under
    this chapter.

    icon_confused.gif:
    Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools
  • Tyrant1919Tyrant1919 Member Posts: 519 ■■■□□□□□□□
    Me possibly starting up a small computer repair service in the near future, I don't like to see this. Me just rambling through the law or whatever it is has no indication that it would apply to simple computer repair.
    A+/N+/S+/L+/Svr+
    MCSA:03/08/12/16 MCSE:03s/EA08/Core Infra
    CCNA
  • shednikshednik Member Posts: 2,005
    That seems a bit much to me for some things
  • dynamikdynamik Banned Posts: 12,312 ■■■■■■■■■□
    That sounds similar to looking for a virus or spyware to me.

    Exactly. It looks like forensics work.
  • eMeSeMeS Member Posts: 1,875 ■■■■■■■■■□
    The countdown has already begun on jettisoning this nonsense. Chalk this one up to a strong lobby influencing a few politicians that probably had no idea what they were even talking about ("Why shouldn't people conducting "investigations" be properly licenses?")

    http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/726462.html

    MS
  • dynamikdynamik Banned Posts: 12,312 ■■■■■■■■■□
    That article makes the situation much more clear. Thanks.

    It's good to see people are taking a stand against it.
  • scheistermeisterscheistermeister Member Posts: 748 ■□□□□□□□□□
    dynamik wrote:
    That sounds similar to looking for a virus or spyware to me.

    Exactly. It looks like forensics work.

    Well on the slashdot forums they brought up the point of someone just doing repairs and coming across something like kiddie **** which isn't always exactly forensics work.
    Give a man fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  • oldbarneyoldbarney Member Posts: 89 ■■□□□□□□□□
    In my personal opinion, I'm thinking the CW33 in Dallas/Ft. Worth took this bill WAAAAAY out of context. It seems to apply only to security companies, based on my interpretation. Moreover, check out section 16(b).
    (b) This chapter does not apply to:...

    ...(12) a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer:

    (A) installs, changes, or repairs a mechanical security device;
    (B) repairs an electronic security device; or
    (C) cuts or makes a key for a security device;
    I belong to a few local geek groups so I'll ask around to see if anybody has heard anything. There is nothing in this bill that appears applicable to PC repair, at least from my perspective. Furthermore, I see nothing in any of the big papers (Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio) mentioning as much. One can almost guarantee that the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle would be all over this bill if it were so wide-ranging.

    EDIT: Well, apparently the FW Star Telegram says this story has legs. I'll check into it.
  • oldbarneyoldbarney Member Posts: 89 ■■□□□□□□□□
    Here's an update from the Austin American Statesman:
    ...State Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, said that routine computer repairs are not affected by the law, which he said was passed to increase protection of consumer privacy.

    "They've gotten people who run computer shops out of sorts for no good reason," Driver said. "If computer shops want to repair computers, there's no problem."

    ....

    But Driver said the bill was intended to protect consumers from privacy invasion and that the problems for computer technicians have been exaggerated. Driver said the only cases in which computer technicians would need a license would be when they are asked to investigate and analyze private data — for example, examining a computer to determine whether the user had committed any illegal activities.
    The bill was signed into law almost one year ago. This is the first that I've heard of it.
  • TalicTalic Member Posts: 423
    I'm surprised that someplace like Texas is trying to pass this, it seems like something the people in California would pass. Except for the Silicon Valley part; it'll be a good way to way to monopolize the market. Imagine only one really expensive company able to fix computers, it'll be like taking to your computer to a forced Geek Squad but with higher prices.

    Imagine the uproar that would happen icon_twisted.gif


    You'd have to admit California has some crazy court rulings though
  • darkerosxxdarkerosxx Banned Posts: 1,343
    Driver said the only cases in which computer technicians would need a license would be when they are asked to investigate and analyze private data — for example, examining a computer to determine whether the user had committed any illegal activities.

    I'm wondering what makes a licensed PI qualified to do this. Do they take computer forensics courses?

    By the way, Mr. Driver seems to belittle the law's effects. The law effects third party actions. If you have a virus or spyware, that becomes third party and all of a sudden you need a PI to fix your computer. I call BS on texas!
  • eMeSeMeS Member Posts: 1,875 ■■■■■■■■■□
    The way this has happened, and that people are only finding out about it now doesn't surprise me at all.

    Our legislature only meets every other year, is constantly in extended sessions, and is for the most part ignored until something like this happens.

    Our constitution has 456 amendments, was written in 1876 (reconstruction - a very different time politically), and was designed to completely limit the abilities and powers of state government (in the US, any power not specifically granted to the federal government in the US is reserved by the states).

    In other words, Texas state government is at times both very chaotic and powerless, both by design.

    I haven't researched this thing specifically, but probably what happened was that it got attached to some other legislative activity, and was passed without full-knowledge, or was the result of some quid-pro-quo deals in the legislature.

    I seriously doubt that the police would ever enforce this. Generally they don't have the highest opinion of PI's.

    This turd will get dumped quickly now that it's getting press...

    MS
Sign In or Register to comment.