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 registrantâs submission of the information to the sex-offender
- This injunction binds the Commissioner and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneysâand others in active concert or participation with any of themâwho 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.
So after some time, what exactly is the requirement? I can’t seem to find what we are supposed to be doing with Internet Identifiers.
Back on September 21, 2018 FAC wrote:
“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.”
It’s been nearly nine months now. Maybe I just missed it (or forgot about it) but has there been any decision or progress on a decision about an appeal?
Thanks.
It’s been about 15 months now. Anything new on a possible appeal?
The government has not appealed. We won.
I have two questions.
1. Is FAC, all4consolaws, NARSOl all co sided news sites. Meaning we don’t have to list the name we use.
Does user to user mean if I comment on someone elses comment and mention their comment by name that I then have to register FAC
Yes – we are a news site.
There is no DIRECT PERSON TO PERSON communication on this site
Awesome thank you for such a quick response. I will remove FAC from my list forthwith.
this is exactly what we face…people don’t understand what they have todo and thats exactly what keeps the system running!
Here is where it might get confusing. A large number of people that I know utilize Instagram )and Facebook) to sell a particular type of product that I also make, but have a lot of trouble selling because I have “stalkers” within the community, so to speak. I am particularly interested in Instagram because that seem to be where most of the action is. If the ONLY purpose for these folks being on Instagram is to facilitate the sale of their products BUT their presence also involves interactions with existing and potential customers and perhaps also following other persons in the same trade in order to obtain followers for your own product, would you have to report tat and, logciallyty, be banned from Instagram within a mater of days? đ
So the state can’t say who the e-mail address belongs to, but they can give it out to anyone. What the hell does that mean? Companies like Facebook will just whack you based on the e-mail address which you have to give to the state unless you want to go to prison. Isn’t that what they are doing now? So no win/lose, just lose. As far as I know, FDLe was not giving out names anyway. They were giving out e-mail addresses, screen names, etc to any social media company that requested them and responding to inquiries about whether or not a particular e-mail address or screen name belonged to a registrant, Absolutely nothing has changed. BS ruling.
I donât believe I have see this covered but what happens when you delete a Internet Idetifier or email? Do you also delete it on FDLE or would you be in violation for not having it show any,ore even though the account has been cancelled. So if I registered with a Match.com for example idetifier but then deleted my account now what?
Hello,
I have not seen a good answer on this yet and I would like to delete sites I no longer used or never used but simply created a account to see what the heck my friends are talking about. If you have a Tinder,Zoosk,Match or other type of account and have registered but deleted would you also delete on the FDLE?. I dont want to have issues with accounts I no longer use or the appearance that I do!
Thanks
Since the internet identifiers cannot be disclosed (pursuant to the order of the court in our II case), don’t worry so much about “extra” ones.
Just came across this on the ACSOL website:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/264952-keys-2-drive-duval
Yet another Floriduh program offering some relief to other classes of criminals where “sex offenders” are singled out and excluded.
Sex offenders are ineligible for the program, as are non-Florida residents and those with licenses suspended in major criminal traffic offenses.
I can understand major criminal traffic offenses, but how are sex offenders relevant to this ? Goes to show they attach registered citizens to everything of ineligibility.
“Sex offenders are ineligible for the program, as are non-Florida residents and those with licenses suspended in major criminal traffic offenses.”
Wow… really. So sad its funny. Let’s just exclude sex offenders. Why? Just because. I mean what the actual !@#$
Non-punitive? Laughable.