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.
A police state is never a good idea. I appreciate the sentiment, but no, it won’t work like that. If you are concerned about tracking yourself you can do so. With tech today they can put your image where ever they want to.
You’re exactly correct! My previous comment was censored from being posted and IT WAS ON TOPIC. I stated who is behind this technology and the sinister reasons behind it.
Whoever is promoting facial recognition cameras is completely unaware of the true intent behind them. It’s NOT good. But FAC apparently doesn’t want us talking about who is doing it and the real reason for it. It’s NEVER going to get better for anyone. There are so many ways to abuse the tech and that’s what “they” do.
Glad to see I’m not the only who thinks increased surveillance is not a good thing. Just look what they’ve done with technology so far: license plate readers, imbedding your status in the drivers license chip/magnetic strip, just to name a couple.
I was also taken aback by the repetition of “if someone is not committing crimes, they shouldn’t care.” That’s as naive as believing “if you have nothing to hide, let us search your car, house, pockets, etc.”
Every time a statute is tweaked, enhanced or created, which happens almost yearly, it makes a technical violation that much easier to happen. When the statute of limitations is removed or lengthened for a crime already committed, wouldn’t it be beneficial to know that?
I think the update might have been misconstrued. The idea is for the technology to be applied to ALL people (not registrants) and to replace bans and buffer/exclusion zones. So instead of being prohibited from being somewhere, registrants would be allowed to enter. Instead of banning registrants from dating apps and social media because they “might” target minors, age verification would ensure minors would not be on there to begin with. The same way technology can be used to prove criminal activity, it can be used to exonerate non-criminal activity.
Nobody is suggesting anything beyond using facial recognition in public areas. This practice is not a 4th amendment violation, since the 1st amendment allows everything in public to be recorded anyhow. Nobody is suggesting searching homes, cars, pockets, or anything of that kind.
It’s food for thought. We post stuff that might foster dialogue. It might be a great idea, it might be horrible. But we can kick it around. In Brevard, banishment zones prevent registrants from merely being present in totally benign places. Rather than sticking with that status quo, there may be other ways to address public concern. Just an idea…
No, I did not “misconstrue” the update. You seem not to understand how technology is already being used against ALL people already. It is very naive to advocate the tired “if you have nothing to hide” trope. Our personal privacy has been eroded for decades, and is being accelerated by technology. It seems to me my post is being personally attacked, “Nobody is suggesting searching homes, cars, pockets, or anything of that kind,” so I won’t waste any more of my time with FAC.
OMG how could anything EVER BE MORE PERFECTLY WRITTEN AND ON POINT? THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING. THERE IS NO LAW TO COMPLY WITH WHEN COMPLIANCE IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE OF THE LAW AND THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF IS ESSENTIALLY YOUR OWN OBITUARY
FAC still doesn’t get it and continues to show its naive understanding of how law enforcement views registrants.
Even after being aware of all the nonsensical technical rules and regulations put on registrants, the unneeded multiple overlapping restrictions from each of the 50 states that are impossible to understand and comply with, which are purposely vague to trap RSO’s and imprison them for as long as possible due to politicization by lawmakers looking for votes.
And now you think that adding more and more AI and more surveillance is going to actually be BENEFICIAL to registrants!
In fact, it is going to make it easier for law enforcement to trap and imprison registrants and make it impossible for registrants not to get unintentionally trapped by some brand new or unknown technical violation by being tracked nonstop everywhere they travel.
You need to change your opinion that law enforcement, lawmakers and even the public will ever make it easier for registrants to live freely by any means, and that if new technology is applied it will only be used against registrants and in no way to their benefit.
Their only view is to imprison as many as possible, make it as difficult for them as possible, and to spew hatred and loathing to the public that every one of them is a child molester pervert who deserves to be killed or imprisoned forever. Sounds terrible, but the truth is sometimes hard to believe.
Here we go trusting the purveyors of tech designed to stalk people. How very Orwellian a concept. I can’t trust the government to run the registry, let alone a system of cameras designed to track me everywhere. Now cops have QR codes to link your cameras into their system and/or allow it to be searchable at their convenience. Once you click the QR code, you relinquish your constitutional right against search and seizure. Think before you act.
My worry is of we get to a stage where a public alert is generated when you are in the area. I know this sounds futuristic and dystopian but then again look at where we are now in terms of civil liberties. On the other hand there are upsides. Maybe this will lessen the “histeria” level among the public and be of use to make the registry “police-accessible” only