Computer Journalism Rathole
PC Magazine is running a story, Texas PC Repair Now Requires PI License, which cites GearLog as its source (but no particular article). Gearlog, in turn, cites The CW33 via this article. CW33 is a television station newsroom which cites... nobody.
Through some other means, a friend turned up This KVUE story (another TV station), which mentions the "newly formed Institute for Justice." Googling with that phrase turns up the IJ press release, which might be the original source.
Holy hell. And nobody has even mentioned which new law we're talking about here, including the IJ.
Attention real journalists: Cite your damn sources. Sheesh.
Attention press release writers: Cite the law, please, so I don't have to paw around for that, too. I am very, very lazy.
Attention Mike Rife, owner of PCTech: If you're going to complain about getting a PI license, maybe you should button your shirt before you get mistaken for a real fake PI.
Update: Found it. My laziness was vanquished. Here is a writeup of the legislative text, thanks to some blog called "Post Process." Presumably, these guys are involved in forensics.
NB: Of all the people I know who practice network forensics in Texas (myself included), approximately zero percent hold a PI license, and the pre-2007 text seems to imply that all we Intrusion Analysts need a special Texas license, too. IOW, this sounds awfully unenforced, if not unenforceable.
Through some other means, a friend turned up This KVUE story (another TV station), which mentions the "newly formed Institute for Justice." Googling with that phrase turns up the IJ press release, which might be the original source.
Holy hell. And nobody has even mentioned which new law we're talking about here, including the IJ.
Attention real journalists: Cite your damn sources. Sheesh.
Attention press release writers: Cite the law, please, so I don't have to paw around for that, too. I am very, very lazy.
Attention Mike Rife, owner of PCTech: If you're going to complain about getting a PI license, maybe you should button your shirt before you get mistaken for a real fake PI.
Update: Found it. My laziness was vanquished. Here is a writeup of the legislative text, thanks to some blog called "Post Process." Presumably, these guys are involved in forensics.
NB: Of all the people I know who practice network forensics in Texas (myself included), approximately zero percent hold a PI license, and the pre-2007 text seems to imply that all we Intrusion Analysts need a special Texas license, too. IOW, this sounds awfully unenforced, if not unenforceable.
Labels: blogosphere, journalism rathole, magnum pi, not the first amendment
posted by todb at 1:59 PM
5 Comments:
Wow. You're an angry little jerk. Nothing like shouting into the ether.
Through a bit of hunting myself, I found the actual document. It seems interesting that you don't cite the law yourself either, but are perfectly willing to pass along the story, but adding that how others aren't either ^_^
Bill Text for PI-requirement
The PostProcess link above cites the code. Thanks for the direct link, though.
Wow. Makes me glad I got my BS in CJ before I got my certifacte in Digital Forensics.
Good article.
-pixleyes
Hey, I just noticed this has been in affect since Sept of 2007.
The blurb from Bill Text for PI-requirement does'nt show it, but this one, showing the complete text of the OCCUPATIONS CODE - CHAPTER 1702. does.
I'd say you may be right about its enforceability. Have not heard of anyone getting arrested for violations, lately.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home