FAC Weekly Update 2025-07-22-Technology Offers a Way Forward
Dear Members and Advocates,
This week we pose the question; can technology be the bridge between public safety and personal liberty? This question is prompted by some recent posts on our forum about a 5th Circuit decision upholding a Mississippi law requiring age verification for social media users, and facial recognition software being used to flag and apprehend individuals. Critics call it invasive and threats to privacy—but what if the technology could be empowering rather than restricting?
For decades, public policy on sex offender registries has focused on exclusion—bans, barriers, and branding—rather than inclusion with oversight. But if we live in a world where advanced technology like facial recognition software, geofencing, and digital age verification already exists, can’t these tools be used to safely include people rather than exclude them from society?
Take dating websites, for example. Much of the hysteria around registrants using dating apps comes from the imagined scenario of adults using them to target children. We all know that most of the “children” are law enforcement officers, but follow me for a second… That fear could be entirely eliminated if the platforms adopted real age verification. Minors wouldn’t get in. This is useful for all adults, since the overwhelming majority of people caught in these stings are first time offenders, not someone already on the list.
We’ve had safety measures in more primitive forms forever. Think of those silhouettes with a “must be this tall to ride” at the entrance of roller coasters, this is a modern equivalent. Children don’t get harmed by going where they are not supposed to go, and adults who are legally using these apps or going benign places wouldn’t be punished or banned for imagined threats. For registrants, technology could alleviate public fear without further dehumanizing people who are already monitored and restricted beyond reason, but as mentioned above, this is good practice to protect ALL users, not just the ones who flew off roller coasters already.
In India, facial recognition technology is being piloted at railway stations to flag known registrants—not to ban them from traveling, but to track movement as a matter of public safety. And last week, in New Orleans, facial recognition helped authorities apprehend an offender who had fled before sentencing. Arguably a good thing for all, since we’re not committing crimes! As we noted in a Weekly Update from several weeks ago about increased penalties for criminal sexual abuse, if someone is not committing crimes, they shouldn’t care.
We know these are controversial tools, but it opens the door to a critical question: Do we really care if law enforcement knows where we are when we’re on public property if we are doing nothing wrong? It’s better than being banned from transportation or grocery stores completely. And again, this is probably good practice for ALL scenarios. AI and facial recognition can probably detect an adult walking with a child. If later, that child is missing, we have an image of the perpetrator. If nothing happened, there’s a benign image on a database that will eventually be overwritten. (As a side note… photographing in public is protected by the First Amendment – just ask the guy who attended a Coldplay concert with his mistress in unrelated news from last week.)
Those required to register are already subject to constant scrutiny. Many of us welcome security cameras — not because they protect others from us, but because they can protect us against false claims from others! For someone with totally lawful intentions, cameras can be exculpatory. Kid goes missing in a supermarket? You’ll be so glad that footage of you pondering Ben and Jerry’s flavors for 20 minutes at the time it happened exists!
The conversation needs to shift and we should start considering technology as a tool to offer a way forward—where public safety is satisfied and those who’ve served their time are allowed to rebuild lives without endless restrictions. As a society, we cannot claim to be pro-public-safety and pro-rehabilitation while rejecting any tools that could improve both goals.
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Away Forward is to make sure that the LEO’s cannot get access and make up underage profiles; to this day every adult website as a terms of service 18 years and above in order to purchase something or to be on their forum etc….
Every Judge has allowed LEO’s to make up fake profiles; except for a Judge in Northern Florida who will rule soon; Judge has sealed all records; cert of habeas included
What case is that?
I still disagree with FAC’s position on such intrusive technology. Using anecdotal examples does not negate the sacrifice of EVERYONE’S privacy by government spying. You have to look at the worst examples of how it could be used, not the ones that everyone would agree on being somehow beneficial. They will manipulate public approval using people like us as scapegoats or boogey men, but once something is in place, you won’t ever be able to remove it from Big Brother’s toolbox no matter how far they take things later. You have been warned.
A state using such tech to track every move is dangerous and not required. Even if we are doing nothing wrong, the perception one could be or is planning to be just because of a title given by others can lead one to be harassed by others who feel they are above those they are harassing, e.g., LE harassing regular citizens (even when they are not aware of it by camera). Sounds very Gestapo regardless of which administration is in office. LE and those in power don’t need these tools unless there are legitimate proven threats to which will be used to combat them. Having them just because and let them be used just because despite no one breaking the law leads to abuse of the tech by those who don’t need to start. Checks and balances get blurred quickly. It is a bad idea and always has been…no matter how much good it allegedly has and can be sold to do. What can be for good can be for bad just as quick.