Member Submission – re: Sheriff’s offices and statutory definition of “Internet identifier”

Recommendation to FAC Board of Directors re: Sheriff’s offices and statutory definition of “Internet identifier”

Dear Florida Action Committee Board of Directors:

I am writing with a recommendation that FAC send an urgent letter to all 67 sheriff’s offices in the State of Florida to ensure that they are properly enforcing the provisions of F.S. 775.21(2)(j) regarding the definition of the term “Internet identifier,” as I have heard disturbing reports of PFRs being arrested for failing to disclose the use of websites and computer programs that clearly fall outside the definition of the term, such as filesharing programs (Google Drive, etc.).

As you know, the current definition of “Internet identifier” in the Florida Statutes is the direct result of the lawsuit FAC filed against the State in 2016, when the Legislature attempted to massively expand the definition of the term. In that case, Judge Hinkle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida struck down as unconstitutional the expansive 2016 definition of the term, narrowing it substantially. The Florida Legislature amended the term in the 2017 Legislative session to its current definition (see bill analysis from that year’s session, attached), in compliance with the order of the Federal Court.

If the reports of PFRs being arrested for using but not reporting filesharing systems are true, then it appears that some sheriff’s offices are applying the former (unconstitutional) definition of the term “Internet identifier” and essentially arresting individuals for non-existent crimes.

Both the statute and the court’s second order (available on the FAC website at https://fac.securityinsight.pro/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/II-Case-Order.pdf) make clear that only email addresses and usernames/screennames used for “social Internet communication,” which is narrowly defined in F.S. 775.21(2)(m) as involving “commercial social networking websites” or “application software” must be registered. In order for a username/screenname to qualify for registration, it must be associated with a commercial social networking platform that both (1) allows users to create webpages or profiles and (2) facilitate direct person-to-person communication (see the Court’s order, pages 5-6, as well as the text of the aforementioned statute). 

Clearly, Google Drive and many other websites and applications that may (arguably, as in the case of Google Drive, or clearly, as in the case of platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams) allow direct person-to-person communication but do not allow users to create webpages or profiles, thereby falling outside the scope of the registration requirement. While such websites and application software may have required registration prior to 2016, that is no longer the case. 

I therefore believe that FAC should send an urgent reminder to all sheriff’s offices to prevent the unlawful arrests of PFRs for using the wide array of websites and computer programs that do not meet the definition of an “Internet identifier” and thus need not be registered. Even if such cases are ultimately dismissed or not even prosecuted, we all know that such wrongful arrests will permanently disqualify otherwise qualified individuals for potential 20/25 year relief from the requirement to register.

See attached bill analysis

Respectfully submitted,