The difference in KR and detective work

[Детективное агентство Москва.]

Greetings to all!
Andrew, i.e. do you think that not being a black hole I can’t talk with my grandmother at the entrance (conduct a survey), or talk with the store owner and get information from him on suppliers of goods under the brand that interests me? (I just had this situation and I got a rather interesting and large amount of information for analysis). Andrey, where is the direct ban on these my actions? I do not introduce myself as BH and do not spend an oral survey of citizens and officials (with their solasia) , what for? No one will forbid me to get acquainted and talk, in this situation I said who I am and why I need this information and they gave it to me. Where is the violation of the law?

Andrei, according to your logic, it turns out that in the interests of the client, you as a black hole do not have the right to receive a single certificate in the state. authorities as it will be called "inquiry", and this is the ARD.
For example: I can go to the tax office and write a request for the charter documents of the company, officially pay for this service and I will be given these documents (without those that have personal data). I received this info in a legal way, then I distribute it in a legal way - a customer buys it from me, I sell and pay taxes. What did I break?

Here are the ways that allowed in BH actions

Article 5. Actions of private detectives

In the course of private detective activity, oral questioning of citizens and officials (with their consent), inquiries, examination of objects and documents (with the written consent of their owners), external examination of buildings, premises and other objects, observation to obtain the necessary information in order to provide services listed in the first part of Article 3 of this Law.

By the way, what is Oral Interview (which is allowed by BH)? I haven’t found a concrete clear definition anywhere (in order to understand what I, as a simple citizen, have no right to do). So, by conducting an oral survey, conversation, interview to collect the information I need, I do not violate the laws. And once again I want to emphasize that if something is permitted and allowed by the BH, this does not mean that no one else can do this except him.

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

But I want to, after all, as in a civilized world ... And the Constitution has nothing to do with it

Doesn't this combination seem contradictory to say the least?

You read the Constitution. Let me remind you again:

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen
Section 29
4. Everyone has the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any legal means. The list of information constituting a state secret is determined by federal law.

Did you see? These are the rights of EVERY person and citizen, and not just BH. The Constitution, meanwhile, is a law of direct action.

In addition, if you’re already trying to navigate the entire civilized world, just look: there is far from being the only black hole that has the right to collect and disseminate information.

So everyone wants it to be simpler ...

Of course. And this is a normal desire of a normal person. By the way, this also greatly contributes to the development of the country's economy. That is why the Licensing Law has been simplified by throwing out many activities from the licensed.

without any control ...

And here you are already disingenuous. I have no doubt that you are aware of the legislative restrictions that apply to any citizen. You cannot know only the law on the black hole.

Yes, and other legislation and other regulations, too, nothing to do with the more so antitrust ...

Very much to do with. You intend to worsen the position of competitors. And this is just the story for FAS.

Here, it’s not a matter of collecting the BH all information, but only that part - not the information as such, but the INFORMATION, the collection procedure of which is regulated by the Legislation and the same Law on the Black-and-White Square) .And we have Russia ... And we - licensed - I want everything as it should be ... Although we are still very far away from this ... And this of course is not buzzing ... In the meantime, everything is the way it is ...

Sorry, but who is it that personally bothers you to turn to the appropriate court and try to defend your point of view. I can say right away: you will look pale and at the finish you will receive a certificate that you are mistaken. But if you are really sure that you are right - write a statement of claim. What are some problems?

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Cyril, hello))) Regarding the requests, there is an authorized form for obtaining information from the BH — “inquiry” (he himself indicated in his text a link to the Law ...) And this is by no means the only way to receive information that is regulated by the Law on the ARD, but also the Law on NPVs too) Regarding the oral survey, the oral survey, the form for obtaining the BH information ... Moreover, all this information obtained during the oral survey should be reflected in the report-written document (or in the act of acceptance of work on the provision of services for collecting information (also a written document), provided to the client without fail) ... Of course, no one can forbid anyone to talk with anyone ... However, provide written information obtained during the conversation (oral interview) (as required by the Law), which will have the status of information obtained precisely by the Law, can only be licensed by BH (I think no one will argue with this) ... When carrying out any analytical actions (the same marketing Consequences) marketers should rely on information obtained from certain sources, confirmed in some way ... Just a conversation, without documenting can not be considered such a source ... Hence the conclusion, the "conversation" so to speak, you will not come to the point, but the report BH, or acts of acceptance of work, of course you come up and it will be a document confirming or refuting any facts ... If, however, you use in your activity (according to the same analysis) information not properly documented, I think it's worth the price for such an analysis. ..) So it’s not so simple in this matter ... For example, only yesterday I finished drawing up a report (and other documents) on the collection of information on a criminal case under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the police sent the statements of the victims to the court in private charges). In order to reverse this clearly illegal decision of the police and decide on the initiation of a criminal case under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he collected information under the Law on NPV-conducted oral interviews and an external examination. On the basis of these written documents attached to the complaints, the prosecutor’s office will decide to cancel the decision of the police and order the verification of the information set out in the acceptance certificates and the report in accordance with Article 144 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a criminal case will be instituted under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the issue has been agreed). Thus, BH, based on the results of the same polls, BH draws up a document based on which some decision can be made ... And now answer, what decision can be made (officially -naturally), based on the fact that you had some kind of conversation with some kind of person ... At the same time, the content of this conversation was not recorded anywhere ... Of course, only your word will be enough for someone ... But I think that when serious work of one word is clearly not enough ... Especially when compiling any analytical documents that should be compiled on the basis of the information received, without written confirmation of such information (document nt legally drafted documents) a serious document cannot be drawn up ... Hence the need to attract precisely licensed BH to the collection of information, which can provide an appropriate document confirming the receipt of this information ... Something like this ... This is just one of the arguments in the benefit of attracting precisely licensed BH to the collection of information ...

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Responding to the position of Eugene, what statement of claim (to whom to present any claims, about which ...) ... What certificates (especially since the court, when resolving the statement of claim, makes a decision, and does not issue any certificates) ... This is what you are talking about ...: lol: In principle, I expressed my position and that's all ... I disagree with this position, your right ... But I look at the questions raised in the discussion not from the point of view of theory, but from the point of view of practice, which I have been practicing for quite some time .... And somehow trying to justify my actions (by the same collection of information) is of course your right ... Only legislative acts need to be read not selectively (as conveniently), but completely

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

only the licensed BH can provide information obtained in the course of the conversation ... in writing ... which will have the status of information obtained precisely by the Law (I think no one will argue with this)

I bet. Here is an example:

Or here: An example of a survey questionnaire http: //sociology.net/metody-sociologicheskih-issledovanij/263-anketa-obrazec-oprosa

And what did you find illegal here?

... When conducting any analytical actions (the same marketing research), marketers should rely on information obtained from certain sources, confirmed in some way ... Just a conversation, without documentary processing can not be considered such a source ...

Who told you that? It is up to the customer to decide what source to consider.

Hence the conclusion, the “conversation" so to speak, you can’t get to the point

And there is no "business" with a consulting company. She has her opinion on certain events. She is paid for this opinion, in fact.

If, however, you use in your activity (according to the same analysis) information that is not properly documented, then I consider it a penny for such an analysis ...

For God's sake, consider it if you like it. But I don’t think anything, but I just know that the information about what the governor said, for example, is worthless pennies on the sidelines of his deputy. And at the same time, mind you, it is not documented and reproduced in any way from the words of the source.

In order to reverse this clearly unlawful decision of the police and resolve the issue of initiating a criminal case under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he collected information within the framework of the NPV Law-produced ... Hence the need to bring in the collection of information precisely a licensed black hole, which can provide the appropriate a document confirming the receipt of this information ... Something like this ... This is just one of the arguments in favor of attracting precisely licensed BH to the collection of information ...

But this is already really serious. Unless, of course, this is so. I fully admit that in dealing with law enforcement agencies and the courts, a detective’s license provides benefits. Well, let it work there.

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

Responding to the position of Eugene, what is the statement of claim (to whom to present any claims, about which ...)

Hello ... Do I need to search for you in what order the laws of the Russian Federation are disputed? You argue with them. Challenge, cho.

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

But I look at the questions raised in the discussion not from the point of view of theory, but from the point of view of practice, which I have been practicing for quite some time .... And somehow trying to justify my actions (on the same collection of information) is of course your right ... Only legislative acts need not be read selectively (as convenient), but completely

Ah, practice, then? Practice is good: you can see it. In this case, it will not be difficult for you to show the judicial practice of closing consulting companies and the media that have not acquired a detective license. Kindly, precedents - in the studio.

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Yeah ... Eugene ... I won’t argue with you anymore ... It makes no sense ... Some kind of appeal of the Laws and something else ... Some kind of judicial practice ... As one of the NKVD leaders used to say - "В the fact that you are not sitting is not your merit ... And our flaw "... We must probably proceed from this rule ... This is our Russia ... I am finishing the discussion ... It is necessary to work (information must be collected legally: lol ) ... And about the seriousness of the action, I would send you a report (so that you would at least once look at how the documents compiled by the BH) look like, but I can not, CONFIDENTIAL: lol:

 

[Детективное агентство Москва.]

Andrey, in my opinion, we just look a little in different directions. You are constantly trying to summarize the entire collection of information under the law of CD&D, and I think that the law regulates only what is written in it.
KR does not do what BH does
1) DOES NOT COLLECT information on civil cases on a contractual basis with participants in the process;
2) market research, DOES NOT COLLECT information for business negotiations DOES NOT IDENTIFY non-creditable or unreliable business partners;
3) DOES NOT INSTALL circumstances of the unlawful use in business activities of brand names and names, unfair competition, as well as the disclosure of information constituting a trade secret;
4) DOES NOT EXPLAIN biographical and other personality data on individual citizens (with their written consent) upon their conclusion of labor and other contracts;
five) DO NOT DO search for missing citizens;
6) DO NOT DO the search for property lost by citizens or enterprises, institutions, organizations;
7) DOES NOT COLLECT information on criminal cases on a contractual basis with participants in the process.
Of the entire list of services, only a part of the item remains
2) market research
In my opinion, no one gave BH a monopoly right to perform this service.

Now, regarding the methods:
Andrei, you won’t deny that the Black Sea Fleet is forbidden to engage in ODS, you won’t deny that “Inquiry” is an event within the ODS. So here is the law of ChDiOD in the work of the BH allows just one element of the horde

Almost all other events are close, but not that.

Regarding the oral survey, the oral survey is the form for receiving the BH information ... Moreover, all this information obtained during the oral poll should be reflected in the report-written document (or in the act of acceptance of work on the provision of data collection services (also a document drawn up in writing) Andrey, this is just your understanding of what an “oral survey” is, this interpretation of this concept has not been documented anywhere.
An oral interview is an individual conversation with the interviewee.
Oral survey is the most common method of controlling student knowledge.
Well, etc. - There is no clear concept of what oral interview is. That is why that which cannot be determined cannot be prohibited.

Again, I do not agree: I, when conducting a conversation, can ask permission to record it on a voice recorder ...., then no written reports. Well, in the acceptance certificate, you don’t need to give any information at all, except that the service under such an agreement was completed on time and the parties have no complaints to each other. (This has already been discussed on the forum). The report to the client is an internal document between the client and BH and how and in what form it will be provided is their internal agreement.

 

[Бедеров Игорь Сергеевич]

It seems I began to understand what is the point ...

I'll tell you now. Detective - in fact, must be an expert! With a corresponding attitude to his legal status in the framework of the trial and the inclusion of the evidence obtained by him in the case.
Currently, such a status of a detective is not established (although it should) and his activity itself is quite gray. Unlike. for example, from a lawyer (who can also collect evidence whitewashing a client).

A competitive intelligence officer (here also a consultant. Specialist of the Security Council) should be vested with such legal status, in the manner prescribed by law, and should not. Their information cannot directly go to the judge’s table.

Such an opinion, and the rest ... sorry, domestic reality.