That’s not correct.
You CAN search for the identifier and it WILL tell the person searching whether the identifier is registered to a RSO, but it WILL NOT identify the person associated with the identifier.

In it’s final order the court entered a narrow injunction that prevents the disclosure of the identity of a registrant associated with a given Internet identifier or email address except for official law enforcement uses.

Has this always been the case?

Anything new to report on this? It would be awesome to have some good news out of Florida 😉

It was notice of the recent SCOTUS case concerning vagueness. The decision was featured in posts last week.

Thanks

Yes – see Doe v. Snyder in the 6th Circuit. I belive it’s precisely what you are looking for.

I would guess that a majority of CP possession crimes also lack an identifiable victim. I ran into that when I was arrested, I had several hundred deleted pictures from the internet and they determined that 5 were of underage persons. They tried to say that another 5 contained illegal images of underage adolescents. What was REALLY weird is that FDLE had a doctor retained as an “expert” and his apparent area of expertise was looking at naked pictures of young people and determining with a high degree of certainty how old they were. Those 5 costs went away quickly once the State Attorney got hold of the case. They were gong to have enough trouble proving that I “knowingly’ possessed anything and that they even had probable cause to seize my computer. My lawyer told me that the five did fit the rather broad definition of the statute and most of them appeared to be old nudist resort pictures.