Decision in Internet Identifier Case
FAC NOTE: I changed the title from “disappointing” decision to just decision. If we look at the lawsuit as a whole, we started by getting an injunction that prevented a MUCH, MUCH worse version of the law. So we didn’t get “internet identifier” registration knocked out entirely, but we did prevent a disaster that would have certainly prevented tens of thousands from even working online…
The order came out in the Internet Identifier challenge, Although the decision is mixed, overall the decision was very disappointing. Essentially, the constitutionality of the Government collecting our internet identifiers (whatever that might be) was upheld.
We have had preliminary discussion with the attorneys, who need to digest the decision and decide among themselves what the best course of action would be, but an appeal is likely imminent.
The order states:
- The summary-judgment motions, ECF Nos. 76 and 77, are granted in part and denied in part.
- It is declared that the requirement in Florida Statutes § 943.0435 for convicted sex offenders to disclose to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement their email addresses and internet identifiers, defined to apply only when a registrant actually uses an identifier to communicate over the internet directly with another user, is constitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit FDLE from making the disclosed information available to law enforcement agencies and officers for official use. The Constitution does not prohibit FDLE from making publicly available a list of email addresses and internet identifiers that have been registered, but the Constitution prohibits FDLE from making publicly available the identity of a registrant associated with any given email address or internet identifier.
- The Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is enjoined from disclosing the identity of a sex-offender registrant associated with any given email address or internet identifier, with this exception: the Commissioner may make this information available to law enforcement agencies and officers for official use only. This injunction does not prohibit FDLE from disclosing information FDLE has obtained from independent sources unrelated to the registrant’s submission of the information to the sex-offender
- This injunction binds the Commissioner and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise.
A copy of the decision follows:
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FAC, which counties’ members are reporting most of these wrongful arrests? If you don’t mind my asking. That and other details may help us take action.
This surprises me because it was my own sheriff’s registration staff who told me about the internet identifier challenge and what did not need to be registered. (That was a few years ago, though).
Everyone’s Zooming now, it seems.
But how use Zoom while remaining compliant?
Do people normally have set usernames or screen names that they use with zoom? Should those be registered? Or are these invisible/subject to change/not applicable? All I see is a bunch of faces and backgrounds.
Does Zoom have a set URL that users access whenever they zoom? Should that be registered? Whenever I see an invitation to a zoom call, it seems like a different URL each time.
What if you are in a room with another Zoom user and you join a conference together? Do you have to register their username/ screen name?
Is Zoom even considered a social app? Or at least, social enough that it normally requires registration?
Overall, do we know of any best practices for keeping up with people via Zoom while remaining compliant?
Zoom is becoming ubiquitous, and I feel left out because I am paralyzed by fear of an inadvertent registration failure.