• Recently Written

  • Reacting to Massachusetts Privacy Law- Controlling third-party relationships
  • Computer Forensic changing environment!
  • The First Test for Michigan’s Public Act 146
  • Breaking down the process of the Public Act 146
  • How does the Holistic Security approach lead to better results for the organization?
  • Where do I start when preserving data in Electronic Discovery?

• Categories

  • Computer Forensics
  • Electronic Discovery
  • Privacy Managment
  • Risk Management

• Archives

  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2007
  • March 2007

• Blogroll

• Admin

  • Log in
  • Wordpress
  • 
  • 
  • XHTML

The First Test for Michigan’s Public Act 146

Posted on August 13, 2008 | Filed Under Computer Forensics, Electronic Discovery 

Less than two months old Public Act 146 will be put to the challenge.  Public Act 146 impacts the computer forensics industry by requiring all investigators to become licensed in the State of Michigan.  Individuals and companies must meet the qualifications by the Act that is administered by the Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG).  Public Act 146 was immediate effective on May 28, 2008 and holds stiff penalty of a four year felony charge for non-licensed individuals. 
 

Reported in ComputerWorld on August 12^th 2008, Belcamp, Maryland based MediaSentry parent company SafeNet had complaints filed against the company for violations of the new Public Act 146 for the investigation of students from Central Michigan University and University of Michigan.  According to the SafeNet website, “they help clients detect and deter unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content and prosecute those who engage in media and software piracy.”  Read more of the details in the article by ComputerWorld: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9112467&pageNumber=1

This news is interesting on several levels as the new law takes form in the State of Michigan.  Is the new law actually doing some good by protecting the legitimacy of the profession of Computer Forensics investigations?  Or is this a tactical approach for the defense?  As the Act claims it first victim it will be very interesting how this will play out over the next few months. 

Comments