Baseline Magazine - February 2008

{“THE PROPOSAL TO RELEGATE COMPUTER FORENSIC
examination only to licensed private investigators is a cash

CELTICS NE W GUARD: FUN TO Y MAKING:

NBA TEAM BEATS MALWARE AUTOMATED DEVELOPMEN T

WHERELEADERSHIPMEETSTECHNOLOGY J ANUARY2008ISSUE080

®

@=206.9 2=<?A D IGITAL FORENSIC STAKEOUT S OME STATES REQUIRE PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSES FOR COMPUTER FORENSIC SPECIALISTS. FAILURE TO COMPLY COULD LAND IT PROS IN JAIL.

WWW.BASELINEMAG.COM

cow for the PI industry. There are arguments about account-
ability, but that is a whitewash. Follow the money.”

SCALING SERVERS: What Fits Google Doesn’t Fit All

SPONSOR

ca PLEASE SEE OUR AD ON PAGE 19

Ralph S. Hoefelmeyer

Colorado Springs, Colo.

Forensic Pros Monitor PI Laws

I was quoted extensively in Deb Radcliff’s January cover story, “Private Eyes Target Digital Monopoly.” The article states that untrained private investigators will be given the exclusive purview to practice computer forensics in South Carolina. This is not the case. South Carolina law requires all businesses that secure evidence for hire to be licensed as private investigators or to fit within a list of exempt businesses.

There are many problems with the existing state of the law in this area. First, there is the problem of unqualified individuals offering services to the public for hire as computer forensic practitioners. Licensure and the requirement of minimum training and certification standards seems the best way to address this.

The second problem is that under the existing law, any licensed private investigator can legally offer services in the field of computer forensics. It seems from the article that the law is going to be changed to allow PIs to offer these services, but they already have that right and, as can be expected, certain untrained PIs have been offering forensic services to the detriment of the public and the justice system.

It is in everyone’s best interest to change the status quo because every private investigator, regardless of training, is lawfully in a position to offer computer forensic services.

Steven M. Abrams

Attorney at Law, Legal Technologist, and Computer Forensics Examiner

Sullivans Island, S.C.

After the story on computer forensics, it occurred to me that state laws requiring private investigator licenses for digital forensic specialists would squelch ISPs’ investigations and private-party open-proxy hon-eypots that are keys to detecting bad actors in cyberspace. Such laws would probably make finding and punishing cybercrime even more cumbersome in those states that require PI licenses. Prosecuting cyber-criminals is already incredibly difficult, which is a major reason cybercrime is a multibillion-dollar underground industry. Adding artificial and unnecessary roadblocks in this area is a very poor idea that will lead to more crime and more victims.

Jeff Chan

Spam URI Realtime Block List Los Altos, Calif.

impossible if you reside out of state. To modify one statement in the article, this is like saying if you pass the licensing exam to practice veterinary medicine, you are also allowed to conduct open heart surgery on humans if you pass a supplementary correspondence class.

A profession with similar problems is vehicle accident investigation. In many states, this requires a private investigator license. However, most PIs cannot do most of the math involved in vehicle accident reconstruction. Conversely, most accident investigators could not care less about how to properly conduct surveillance on a cheating spouse or how to do a background check. Yet, these are the topics of the PI licensing exam, and the exam has nothing on our profession. Go figure.

Daniel W. Vomhof III

Expert Witness Services La Mesa, Calif.

For computer forensic specialists potentially subject to state regulation, look for the licensing to also include passing a PI license test, which is almost

WRITE TO US What do you think about our cover story on PCI? Write to us at editors@baselinemag.com.

Department Stores Must Evolve or Perish

In regard to Mike Vizard’s November column, “Head in the Cloud,” your observation that Macy’s is an aggregation of designer boutiques is, of course, correct. But if we look back to the origin of Macy’s (and other department stores) we see that the role of the department store has changed markedly.

More than 50 years ago, the concept of name-brand designers was pretty much unheard of. Consumers went to

department stores to get a sense of the new fashions. Buyers at those stores were charged with finding and merchandising goods; to lure shoppers, window dressers created appealing vignettes using the merchandise to be found within.

Only in the past two decades or so has the notion of the “designer brand” gotten traction. Of course, the newer media technologies made for a ripe environment in which to advertise and market, and now we are at the point where virtually any given “designer” offers everything from shoes and dresses to home furnishings and linens. By going vertical, these designers have worked to remove the department stores from the mix.

In response, the department stores have gone vertical with their own brands. This leaves them in the unenviable position of having to build their own brand recognition even while merchandising the designer goods, whose creators are essentially competitors. Perhaps this means department stores will become little more than consignment shops, where the designers take full responsibility for supplying, restocking and merchandising, and merely pay rent for floor space.