FAC keeps pushing for answers after FDLE fails to clarify “Internet Identifier” requirements.
We want to update you on an important development regarding our ongoing efforts to get clear answers on Florida’s “internet identifier” reporting requirements.
As you know, FAC submitted a Request for Declaratory Statement to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement under Florida Statutes Section 120.565(1). We asked what should be very straightforward questions: what types of accounts actually need to be reported under Florida Statutes Section 943.0435, who decides whether something qualifies, and whether there is any written guidance that people can rely on. We initiated this action after members were getting violated in some counties for not registering their Google Drive account, YouTube (which does not offer direct person-to-person communication) or similar accounts. We asked other registration offices and sheriffs whether certain accounts were required to be registered and got differing answers. Some had no clue.
On March 11, 2026, FDLE issued a denial — but instead of answering those questions, they totally avoided them. We have now formally appealed that decision.
This matters because the statute applies to all individuals required to register and our members are directly affected. If someone gets it wrong, they can be arrested. That makes clarity not just helpful, but absolutely necessary. FDLE suggested that we were trying to determine the conduct of third parties. That’s simply not true. We’re asking for guidance for our own members — people who are required to follow this law and need to understand what is expected of them so they don’t unintentionally violate it. They also refused to answer the most basic question: who actually decides whether a specific website or app must be reported? Think about it — if you’re unsure whether your comment on our website or your employer’s cloud storage account needs to be registered, who do you ask? And if law enforcement sees online activity that may not have been reported, who decides whether that’s a violation? Is it an individual officer? A local sheriff? FDLE? Right now, there’s no clear answer.
On top of that, FDLE declined to say whether they even have any written policies or internal guidance on this issue. If such guidance exists, people should be able to rely on it. If it doesn’t, that raises even more serious concerns about how this law is being enforced across the state.
At the end of the day, all we are asking for is clarity. When a law carries severe criminal penalties with mandatory minimum sentences, people need to know what is required of them — and law enforcement needs a consistent standard to follow.
We’ll keep you updated as this moves forward. In the meantime, to read our appeal, click on the link below.
FAC Appeal to FDLE – Dec Stmt 04212026
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I turn your attention to Florida statutes
775.21 and 943.0437. Pay close attention to 775.21 sections j and m.
This is among the most important issues FAC can pursue at this time. It impacts all active state residents on the registry who use the Internet, and is a highly dangerous sword hanging over all of our heads. The fact is, there is no clear standard as to what identifiers need to be registered and what identifiers do not. Leaving this to the discretion of individual law enforcement officers or their agencies is a guarantee that there will be inconsistent enforcement of vague language and people will lose their freedom as a result. What should happen is that this section of the law should be struck down for that reason. FDLE can provide all the guidance it wants, but the way that statutes are enforced allows individual officers to arrest based on their own discretion and interpretation unless the statute has been interpreted by the courts in applicable case law. FDLE does not want to provide any guidance, because the goal is to allow this discretion as much as possible so that more offenders can be locked up throughout the state as a result of this vagueness. And even if they did want to, it would be difficult to create a definition that would be clear enough remove any doubt about the eligibility of every website out there considering the differences in their features. The only reasonable thing they might be able to do is provide a list of websites they want identifiers for if you use them, but that would limit itself in ways that might not be acceptable to some. Ultimately, there is just no way to enforce such a restriction in a fair and uniform manner.
50 States 3244 Counties
Written by Quiet too long 04/22/2026
The mirror’s 3,244 prejudicial shattered shards sparkle bright and far, each one carrying the registry’s taint of stigma — and they represent the only light the public is compelled to follow.
One of the benefits to being turned down is that PFR’s now have a format to use as a template to submit their own request letter. I will be typing and submitting one this weekend. If FDLE receives a few hundred requests for clarification in a week they may rethink their position on dodging around the question posed by FAC
That is a great idea! Send it from yourself so they can’t argue we’re asking about third-party conduct and please share the results.
Should we send a letter to question this and let FAC somehow know we did so they can track number of letters sent by individuals asking for these answers? That way if they try to use same response as never been asked these its tracked.
Yes. That would be helpful.
I plan on it and am drafting my demand at this time. Since they desire to have specific circumstances that is what they will receive. But in doing so they might just provide their own downfall.
The way I see it is that a tailored response based on my circumstances would be essentially writing the reporting requirements specifically for me while another PFR would receive different requirements which would in fact violate the Equal protection clause of the Constitution. I think they would have been better off responding to FAC with a generic, one size fits all answer.
Doing it on a case by case basis also allows two registrants with similar circumstances to receive different requirements.
The whole issue is government intrusion in people’s lives who are under no sanction whatsoever!
I completed my sanctions! I am under no sanction, therefore they need to stop intruding in my life! Very simple!
JJJJ
Are you SURE? A sanction can mean not going on school property, or a playground. Are you sure you are not allowed to go there? I have been off sanctions for 21 years and I know I cannot go to a school. I tried to go to a meeting there that was important but was told I could not be on the property. Although some ex felons may be able to go on school grounds to see their kids in a play etc. but for ex -sex-offenders, I am pretty sure we cannot be on school grounds for any reason. (FAC, if I am wrong correct me)
I get request all the time from our neighborhood for me to show up at a neighborhood meeting at the close by school, but I know I cannot be on the property, even off sanctions and not taking the risk.
You are incorrect. Persons on the registry can be on school grounds to drop off/pick up their kids or if they are guardians of a kid. They can go for their kids plays, graduations, etc., but under the newly revised statute have to inform administration. Different municipalities may have different rules, but this is the state-wide rule.
FAC
Well thanks for clarifying that. I was under the impression we could not be there for any reason. Like I said, I get requests all the time for our neighborhood meetings but they are in the school. It is on weekends when no kids are there but was always afraid I would be arrested. Any even if I could go, I would not want someone who recognized me, calling me out in front of everyone so I will still play it safe. I am too old to have kids young enough to be in school so no reason for me to be on school grounds.
F.A.C- What would we do without you to set us straight.