The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General
Government
BILL: CS/SB 1662
INTRODUCER: Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee and Senator Collins
SUBJECT: Cybersecurity
DATE: February 20, 2024
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Harmsen McVaney GO Fav/CS
2. Hunter Betta AEG Pre-meeting
3. AP
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Substantial Changes
I. Summary:
CS/SB 1662 modifies provisions relating to the Department of Management Services (DMS) and
the Florida Digital Service (FLDS). The DMS oversees information technology (IT) governance
and security for the executive branch of state government. Through the FLDS, the DMS
implements duties and policies for IT and cybersecurity for state agencies.
Specifically, the bill:
Expands the FLDS’ duties;
Provides that the state chief information officer (CIO), in consultation with the Secretary of
DMS, must designate a state chief technology officer and specifies the position’s
responsibilities;
Requires the FLDS to create guidelines for and ensure independent project oversight on all
state agency IT projects of $25 million or more (up from $10 million in current law);
Deletes the requirement that the FLDS conduct annual assessments of state agencies to
determine compliance with the DMS’ IT standards and guidelines;
Requires state agency information security managers to ensure compliance with
cybersecurity governance and the state enterprise security program and incident response
plan;
Shortens the timeframe in which state agencies must report ransomware and cybersecurity
incidents, and applies this notification requirement to all such incidents, regardless of
severity level;
REVISED: BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 2
Removes the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s (FDLE) Cybercrime Office from the
parties that must receive immediate notification of ransomware and cybersecurity incidents,
instead requiring notification to the only the DMS’ Cybersecurity Operations Center
(CSOC). The CSOC must then immediately notify the FDLE cybercrime office of such
notifications from state agencies, and the Cybercrime Office and the local sheriff for
notifications from local governments;
Requires the CSOC to immediately notify the state the CIO and the state cyber security
information officer of a reported incident;
Authorizes the DMS to brief legislative committees that are responsible for cybersecurity
policy on cybersecurity matters in a closed setting;
Allows a legislator who serves on a committee that is responsible for cybersecurity policy to
attend the Cybersecurity Advisory Council (CAC) meetings, including those portions that are
closed to the Sunshine;
Permits the DMS to exercise authority to obtain immediate access to public or private
infrastructure that hosts agency data, and to direct measures to assess, monitor, and safeguard
that data;
Requires that one of the three representatives on the CAC from the critical infrastructure
sectors must be from a utility provider and requires that one of the members of the CAC is a
representative from a local government; and
Revises the mission, goals, and responsibilities of the Florida Center for Cybersecurity.
The bill may significantly increase state expenditures relating to new data governance duties
assigned to the FLDS and the DMS and additional authorities assigned to the FLDS and the
Florida Center for Cybersecurity. See Section V., Fiscal Impact Statement.
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2024.
II. Present Situation:
Over the last decade, cybersecurity has rapidly become a growing concern. Cyberattacks are
growing in frequency and severity. Cybercrime is expected to inflict $8 trillion worth of damage
globally in 2023.
1
The United States is often a target of cyberattacks,
2
including attacks on
critical infrastructure, and has been a target of more significant cyberattacks
3
over the last 14
years than any other country.
4
The Colonial Pipeline is an example of critical infrastructure that
was attacked, disrupting what is arguably the nation’s most important fuel conduit.
5
1
Steve Morgan, CYBERCRIME MAGAZINE, Cybercrime to Cost the World $8 Trillion Annually in 2023 (Oct, 17, 2022),
Cybercrime To Cost The World 8 Trillion Annually In 2023 (cybersecurityventures.com) (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
2
Chris Jaikaran, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Cybersecurity: Selected Cyberattacks, 2012-2022 (Aug. 9, 2023),
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46974 (last visited Jan. 25, 2024).
3
“Significant cyber-attacks” are defined as cyber-attacks on a country’s government agencies, defense and high-tech
companies, or economic crimes with losses equating to more than a million dollars. Kyle Brasseur, FRA CONFERENCES,
Study: U.S. Largest Target for Significant Cyber-Attacks (Jul. 13, 2020), https://www.fraconferences.com/insights-
articles/compliance/study-us-largest-target-for-significant-cyber-
attacks/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20been%20on%20the%20receiving,article%20is%20from%20FRA%27s
%20sister%20company%2C%20Compliance%20Week (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
4
Id.
5
S&P Global, Pipeline operators must start reporting cyberattacks to government: TSA orders,
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/052721-pipeline-operators- BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 3
Ransomware is a type of cybersecurity incident where malware
6
that is designed to encrypt files
on a device and renders the files and the systems that rely on them unusable. In other words,
critical information is no longer accessible. During a ransomware attack, malicious actors
demand a ransom in exchange for regained access through decryption. If the ransom is not paid,
the ransomware actors will often threaten to sell or leak the data or authentication information.
Even if the ransom is paid, there is no guarantee that the bad actor will follow through with
decryption.
In recent years, ransomware incidents have become increasingly prevalent among the nation’s
state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities and critical infrastructure organizations.
7
For example, Tallahassee Memorial Hospital was hit by a ransomware attack February 2023, and
the hospital’s systems were forced to shut down, impacting many local residents in need of
medical care.
8
Information Technology and Cybersecurity Management
The Department of Management Services (DMS) oversees information technology (IT)
9
governance and security for the executive branch in Florida.
10
The Florida Digital Service
(FLDS) is housed within the DMS and was established in 2020 to replace the Division of State
Technology.
11
The FLDS works under the DMS to implement policies for IT and cybersecurity
for state agencies.
12
The head of the FLDS is appointed by the Secretary of Management Services
13
and serves as the
state chief information officer (CIO).
14
The CIO must have at least five years of experience in
the development of IT system strategic planning and IT policy and, preferably, have leadership-
level experience in the design, development, and deployment of interoperable software and data
solutions.
15
The FLDS must propose innovative solutions that securely modernize state
must-start-reporting-cyberattacks-to-government-tsa-
orders?utm_campaign=corporatepro&utm_medium=contentdigest&utm_source=esgmay2021 (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
6
“Malware” means hardware, firmware, or software that is intentionally included or inserted in a system for a harmful
purpose. malware - Glossary | CSRC (nist.gov) (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
7
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, Ransomware 101, https://www.cisa.gov/stopransomware/ransomware-101 (last
visited Jan. 31, 2024).
8
Caitlyn Stroh-Page, TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT, Social Security Numbers, Some Patient Treatment Info Involved in TMH
Cybersecurity Incident (Apr. 1, 2023) https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2023/03/31/tmh-updates-what-
information-was-affected-during-cybersecurity-incident/70069655007/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2024).
9
The term “information technology” means equipment, hardware, software, firmware, programs, systems, networks,
infrastructure, media, and related material used to automatically, electronically, and wirelessly collect, receive, access,
transmit, display, store, record, retrieve, analyze, evaluate, process, classify, manipulate, manage, assimilate, control,
communicate, exchange, convert, converge, interface, switch, or disseminate information of any kind or form.
Section 282.0041(19), F.S.
10
See s. 20.22, F.S.
11
Chapter 2020-161, Laws of Fla.
12
See s. 20.22(2)(b), F.S.
13
The Secretary of Management Services serves as the head of the DMS and is appointed by the Governor, subject to
confirmation by the Senate. Section 20.22(1), F.S.
14
Section 282.0051(2)(a), F.S.
15
Id. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 4
government, including technology and information services, to achieve value through digital
transformation and interoperability, and to fully support Florida’s cloud first policy.
16
The DMS, through the FLDS, has the following powers, duties, and functions:
17
Develop IT policy for the management of the state’s IT resources;
Develop an enterprise architecture;
Establish IT project management and oversight standards for state agencies;
Provide oversight for all state agency IT projects that have a total cost of $10 million or more
and that are funded in the General Appropriations Act or any other law;
18
and
Standardize and consolidate IT services that support interoperability, Florida’s cloud first
policy, and business functions and operations that are common across state agencies.
State Cybersecurity Act
While it has existed in some form for more than 10 years, in 2022, the Legislature passed the
State Cybersecurity Act,
19
which requires the DMS and the heads of the state agencies
20
to meet
certain requirements to enhance the cybersecurity
21
of the state agencies.
The DMS through FLDS is tasked with completing the following:
22
Establish standards for assessing agency cybersecurity risks;
Adopt rules to mitigate risk, support a security governance framework, and safeguard agency
digital assets, data,
23
information, and IT resources;
24
Designate a chief information security officer (CISO);
Develop and annually update a statewide cybersecurity strategic plan such as identification
and mitigation of risk, protections against threats, and tactical risk detection for cyber
incidents;
25
Develop and publish for use by state agencies a cybersecurity governance framework;
Assist the state agencies in complying with the State Cybersecurity Act;
16
Section 282.0051(1), F.S.
17
Id.
18
The FLDS provides project oversight on IT projects that have a total cost of $20 million or more for the Department of
Financial Services, the Department of Legal Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Section 282.0051(1)(m), F.S.
19
Section 282.318, F.S.
20
For purposes of the State Cybersecurity Act, the term “state agency” includes the Department of Legal Affairs, the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Department of Financial Services. Section 282.318(2), F.S.
21
“Cybersecurity” means the protection afforded to an automated information system in order to attain the applicable
objectives of preserving the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data, information, and information technology
resources. Section 282.0041(8), F.S.
22
Section 282.318(3), F.S.
23
“Data” means a subset of structured information in a format that allows such information to be electronically retrieved and
transmitted. Section 282.0041(9), F.S.
24
“Information technology resources” means data processing hardware and software and services, communications, supplies,
personnel, facility resources, maintenance, and training. Section 282.0041(22), F.S.
25
“Incident” means a violation or imminent threat of violation, whether such violation is accidental or deliberate, of
information technology resources, security, policies, or practices. An imminent threat of violation refers to a situation in
which the state agency has a factual basis for believing that a specific incident is about to occur. Section 282.0041(19), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 5
Provide annual training on cybersecurity for information security managers and computer
security incident response team members;
Annually review the strategic and operational cybersecurity plans of state agencies;
Track the state agencies’ implementation of remediation plans;
Provide cybersecurity training to all state agency technology professionals that develops,
assesses, and documents competencies by role and skill level;
Maintain a Cybersecurity Operations Center (CSOC) led by the CISO to serve as a
clearinghouse for threat information and coordinate with the FDLE to support responses to
incidents; and
Lead an Emergency Support Function under the state emergency management plan.
The State Cybersecurity Act requires the head of each state agency to designate an information
security manager to administer the state agency’s cybersecurity program.
26
The head of the
agency has additional tasks in protecting against cybersecurity threats as follows:
27
Establish a cybersecurity incident response team with the FLDS and the Cybercrime Office,
which must immediately report all confirmed or suspected incidents to the CISO;
Annually submit to the DMS the state agency’s strategic and operational cybersecurity plans;
Conduct and update a comprehensive risk assessment to determine the security threats once
every three years;
Develop and update written internal policies and procedures for reporting cyber incidents;
Implement safeguards and risk assessment remediation plans to address identified risks;
Ensure internal audits and evaluations of the agency’s cybersecurity program are conducted;
Ensure that the cybersecurity requirements for the solicitation, contracts, and service-level
agreement of IT and IT resources meet or exceed applicable state and federal laws,
regulations, and standards for cybersecurity, including the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)
28
cybersecurity framework;
Provide cybersecurity training to all agency employees within 30 days of employment;
Develop a process that is consistent with the rules and guidelines established by the FLDS
for detecting, reporting, and responding to threats, breaches, or cybersecurity incidents; and
Submit an after-action report to the FLDS within one week after remediation of a
cybersecurity incident or ransomware incident.
26
Section 282.318(4)(a), F.S.
27
Section 282.318(4), F.S.
28
NIST, otherwise known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, “is a non-regulatory government agency
that develops technology, metrics, and standards to drive innovation and economic competitiveness at U.S.-based
organizations in the science and technology industry.” Nate Lord, What is NIST Compliance, DataInsider (May. 6, 2023),
https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/what-nist-compliance (last visited Jan. 31, 2024). BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 6
Florida Cybersecurity Advisory Council
The Florida Cybersecurity Advisory Council
29
(CAC) within the DMS
30
assists state agencies in
protecting IT resources from cyber threats and incidents.
31
The CAC must assist the FLDS in
implementing best cybersecurity practices, taking into consideration the final recommendations
of the Florida Cybersecurity Task Force – a task force created to review and assess the state’s
cybersecurity infrastructure, governance, and operations.
32
The CAC meets at least quarterly to:
33
Review existing state agency cybersecurity policies;
Assess ongoing risks to state agency IT;
Recommend a reporting and information sharing system to notify state agencies of new risks;
Recommend data breach simulation exercises;
Assist the FLDS in developing cybersecurity best practice recommendations; and
Examine inconsistencies between state and federal law regarding cybersecurity.
The CAC must work with NIST and other federal agencies, private sector businesses, and private
security experts to identify which local infrastructure sectors, not covered by federal law, are at
the greatest risk of cyber-attacks and to identify categories of critical infrastructure as critical
cyber infrastructure if cyber damage to the infrastructure could result in catastrophic
consequences.
34
The CAC must also prepare and submit a comprehensive report to the Governor, the President of
the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that includes data, trends, analysis,
findings, and recommendations for state and local action regarding ransomware incidents as
stated below:
35
Descriptive statistics, including the amount of ransom requested, duration of the incident, and
overall monetary cost to taxpayers of the incident;
A detailed statistical analysis of the circumstances that led to the ransomware incident which
does not include the name of the state agency or local government, network information, or
system identifying information;
Statistical analysis of the level of cybersecurity employee training and frequency of data
backup for the state agencies or local governments that reported incidents;
Specific issues identified with current policy, procedure, rule, or statute and
recommendations to address those issues; and
Other recommendations to prevent ransomware incidents.
29
Under Florida law, an “advisory council” means an advisory body created by specific statutory enactment and appointed to
function on a continuing basis. Generally, an advisory council is enacted to study the problems arising in a specified
functional or program area of state government and to provide recommendations and policy alternatives. Section 20.03(7),
F.S.; See also s. 20.052, F.S.
30
Section 282.319(1), F.S.
31
Section 282.319(2), F.S.
32
Section 282.319(2)-(3), F.S.
33
Section 282.319(9), F.S.
34
Section 282.319(10), F.S.
35
Section 282.319(11), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 7
Cyber Incident Response
The National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) was developed by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, according to the direction of Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-41.
36
The
NCIRP is part of the broader National Preparedness System and establishes the strategic
framework for a whole-of-Nation approach to mitigating, responding to, and recovering from
cybersecurity incidents posing risk to critical infrastructure.
37
The NCIRP was developed in
coordination with federal, state, local, and private sector entities and is designed to interface with
industry best practice standards for cybersecurity, including the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
The NCIRP adopted a common schema for describing the severity of cybersecurity incidents
affecting the U.S. The schema establishes a common framework to evaluate and assess
cybersecurity incidents to ensure that all departments and agencies have a common view of the
severity of a given incident; urgency required for responding to a given incident; seniority level
necessary for coordinating response efforts; and level of investment required for response
efforts.
38
The severity level of a cybersecurity incident in accordance with the NCIRP is determined as
follows:
Level 5: An emergency-level incident within the specified jurisdiction if the incident poses
an imminent threat to the provision of wide-scale critical infrastructure services; national,
state, or local security; or the lives of the country’s, state’s, or local government’s citizens.
Level 4: A severe-level incident if the incident is likely to result in a significant impact
within the affected jurisdiction which affects the public health or safety; national, state, or
local security; economic security; or individual civil liberties.
Level 3: A high-level incident if the incident is likely to result in a demonstrable impact in
the affected jurisdiction to public health or safety; national, state, or local security; economic
security; civil liberties; or public confidence.
Level 2: A medium-level incident if the incident may impact public health or safety; national,
state, or local security; economic security; civil liberties; or public confidence.
Level 1: A low-level incident if the incident is unlikely to impact public health or safety;
national, state, or local security; economic security; or public confidence.
39
State agencies and local governments in Florida, must report to the CSOC all ransomware
incidents and any cybersecurity incidents at severity levels of three, four, or five as soon as
possible, but no later than 48 hours after discovery of a cybersecurity incident and no later than
12 hours after discovery of a ransomware incident.
40
The CSOC is required to notify the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of any incidents at
36
Annex for PPD-41: U.S. Cyber Incident Coordination, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2016/07/26/annex-presidential-policy-directive-united-states-cyber-incident (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
37
Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Cybersecurity Incident Response,
https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cybersecurity-best-practices/organizations-and-cyber-safety/cybersecurity-incident-
response#:~:text=%20National%20Cyber%20Incident%20Response%20Plan%20%28NCIRP%29%20The,incidents%20and
%20how%20those%20activities%20all%20fit%20together (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
38
Id.
39
Section 282.318(3)(c)9.a, F.S.
40
Sections 282.318(3)(c)9.c(I), F.S. and 282.3185(5)(b)1., F.S. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 8
severity levels of three, four, or five as soon as possible, but no later than 12 hours after
receiving the incident report from the state agency or local government.
41
For state agency
incidents at severity levels one and two, they must report these to the CSOC and the Cybercrime
Office at the FDLE as soon as possible.
42
The notification must include a high-level description of the incident and the likely effects. An
incident report for a cybersecurity or ransomware incident by a state agency or local government
must include, at a minimum:
A summary of the facts surrounding the cybersecurity or ransomware incident;
The date on which the state agency or local government most recently backed up its data, the
physical location of the backup, if the backup was affected, and if the backup was created
using cloud computing;
The types of data compromised by the cybersecurity or ransomware incident;
The estimated fiscal impact of the cybersecurity or ransomware incident;
In the case of a ransomware incident, the details of the ransom demanded; and
If the reporting entity is a local government, a statement requesting or declining assistance
from the CSOC, FDLE Cybercrime Office, or sheriff.
43
In addition, the CSOC must provide consolidated incident reports to the President of the Senate,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the CAC on a quarterly basis.
44
The consolidated
incident reports to the CAC may not contain any state agency or local government name,
network information, or system identifying information, but must contain sufficient relevant
information to allow the CAC to fulfill its responsibilities.
45
State agencies and local governments must submit an after-action report to the FLDS within one
week of the remediation of a cybersecurity or ransomware incident.
46
The report must summarize
the incident, state the resolution, and any insights from the incident.
Public Record and Public Meetings Exemption for Specific Cybersecurity Records Held by
Agencies
The State Cybersecurity Act makes confidential and exempt from public records copying and
inspection requirements the portions of risk assessments, evaluations, external audits, and other
agency cybersecurity program reports that are held by an agency, if the disclosure would
facilitate unauthorized access to, modification, disclosure, or destruction of data or IT
resources.
47
However, this information must be shared with the Auditor General, DLE
Cybercrime Office, FLDS, and the Chief Inspector General. An agency may share its
confidential and exempt documents with a local government, another agency, or a federal agency
if given for a cybersecurity purpose, or in furtherance of the agency’s official duties.
48
41
Section 282.318(3)(c)9.c.(II), F.S.
42
Section 282.318(3)(c)(9)(d), F.S.
43
Section 282.318(3)(c)9.b, F.S.
44
Section 282.318(3)(c)9.e, F.S.
45
Id.
46
Section 282.318(4)(k), F.S.
47
Section 282.318(5), F.S.
48
Section 282.318(7), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 9
Additionally, any document that, when held by an agency, is exempt or confidential and exempt
under s. 119.07(1), F.S., maintains its exempt status when the custodian agency shares it with the
legislature.
49
The State Cybersecurity Act also exempts portions of any public meeting that would reveal
records that it makes confidential and exempt.
50
Florida Fusion Center
To help unify the Nation’s efforts to share information and exchange intelligence, the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Act) was passed. The Act provides
guidance to agencies at all levels about information sharing, access and collaboration. Part of this
guidance is the need to designate a single fusion center in each state to serve as the “hub” for
these activities.
51
The Florida Fusion Center (FFC), began operations in 2007 and is located in Tallahassee,
Florida. The FFC was designated as the state’s primary fusion center by the Governor in March
of 2008 and serves as the head of the Network of Florida Fusion Centers. There are regional
fusion centers in each of the seven FDLE regions to support local and state intelligence needs.
52
The FFC provides connectivity and coordinates intelligence sharing among seven regional fusion
centers located throughout the state. Operations are guided by the understanding that the key to
effectiveness is the development and sharing of information to the fullest extent permitted by law
and agency policy. The FFC consists of approximately 45 FDLE members, federal agencies, and
twelve multi-disciplinary state agency partners; and includes outreach to private sector entities.
53
Florida Center for Cybersecurity
The Florida Center for Cybersecurity (Cyber Florida) is housed within the University of South
Florida (USF) and was first established in 2014.
54
The goals of Cyber Florida are to:
55
Position Florida as the national leader in cybersecurity and its related workforce through
education, research, and community engagement.
Assist in the creation of jobs in the state’s cybersecurity industry and enhance the
existing cybersecurity workforce.
Act as a cooperative facilitator for state business and higher education communities to
share cybersecurity knowledge, resources, and training.
Seek out partnerships with major military installations to assist, when possible, in
homeland cybersecurity defense initiatives.
49
Section 11.0431(2)(a), F.S.
50
Section 282.318(6), F.S.
51
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Florida Fusion Center History,
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FFC/FusionCenterHistory (last visited January 31, 2024).
52
Id.
53
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Long-Range Program Plan Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015,
September 30, 2009, available at http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/Document.aspx?ID=2215&DocType=PDF (last visited
Jan. 31, 2024).
54
Section 282.318(4)(k), F.S.
55
Section 1004.444, F.S. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 10
Attract cybersecurity companies to the state with an emphasis on defense, finance,
health care, transportation, and utility sectors.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Information Technology Project Oversight
Section 2 expands the Florida Digital Services’ (FLDS) powers, duties, and functions, vesting it
with the authority to:
Lead enterprise cybersecurity efforts;
Safeguard enterprise digital data; and
Test, develop, and deploy solutions that securely modernize state government, including
technology and information services.
The bill amends the FLDS’ duty to perform project oversight of state information technology
(IT) projects and create related guidelines to require the FLDS to “ensure that independent
project oversight…is performed in compliance with applicable state and federal law.” This will
apply to state agency IT projects that will cost $25 million or more, rather than $10 million.
Additionally, the bill increases the threshold from $10 million to $25 million per IT project at
which state agencies must allow the FLDS to participate in the project’s development and
specifications and to provide post-award contract monitoring.
The bill maintains the FLDS’ duty to perform project oversight, rather than ensure, on IT
projects for the Department of Financial Service (DFS), Department of Legal Affairs (DLA), and
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), but increases the total project cost
which qualifies the IT project for FLDS oversight from $20 million to $25 million.
Section 2 deletes the FLDS’ duty to annually assess and report on state agency compliance with
IT standards and guidelines, as developed by the DMS.
State Chief Technology Officer
Section 2 also creates the position of state chief technology officer, who is responsible for:
Establishing and maintaining an enterprise architecture framework that ensures that IT
investments align with Florida’s strategic objectives and initiatives;
Conducting comprehensive evaluations of potential technological solutions;
Cultivating strategic partnerships among both the state enterprise agencies and the private
sector to develop expertise, promote collaboration, and advance Florida’s technological
capabilities;
Supervising program management of specific state agency IT projects;
Providing advisory support and oversight for technology-related projects; and
Identifying and recommending best practices to enhance the state’s technological efficiency
and effectiveness, and technology project outcomes.
The state chief information officer (CIO), in consultation with the Secretary of Department of
Management Services (DMS), will designate the state chief technology officer. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 11
Enterprise Digital Data
Section 2 amends s. 282.0051(5), F.S., to delete the requirement that the DMS enter into a
shared-data agreement with an agency that has primary custody responsibility of, or data-sharing
responsibility for, data before the DMS may retrieve or disclose such data.
Section 1 defines “enterprise digital data” as information that is held by a state agency in
electronic form that is deemed to be owned by the state and held for state purposes by the state
agency. It further states that enterprise digital data that is subject to statutory requirements for
particular types of sensitive data or to contractual limitations for data marked as trade secrets or
sensitive corporate data held by state agencies “shall be treated in accordance with such
requirements or limitations” and that the DMS must maintain personnel who are appropriately
certified to “steward such enterprise digital data” and must also be maintained in accordance
with chapter 119, F.S.
It is unclear how an agency that agrees to be the sole custodian of such data may comply with
such contractual provisions if the agency is also required to share the data with the FLDS.
Similarly, certain public records exemptions apply only when held by the specific custodian
agency; the exemption does not necessarily transfer with the record if it is disclosed to a different
agency.
Additionally, section 4 grants the DMS, through the FLDS, authority to obtain immediate access
to public or private infrastructure that hosts enterprise digital data. The bill additionally grants
authority to the DMS to direct, in consultation with the state agency that holds the particular
enterprise digital data, measures to assess, monitor, and safeguard the digital data.
Cybersecurity
Section 4 amends s. 282.318, F.S., to make FLDS the sole entity responsible for leading
cybersecurity efforts and safeguarding agency digital data, in addition to the current duties of
establishing standards and processes for assessing state agency cybersecurity risks and
determining appropriate security measures. The DMS “acting through the FLDS” was formerly
responsible for this provision.
Cybersecurity Operations Center
Agency Notifications to the Cyber Security Operations Center (CSOC)
Pursuant to s. 282.318(3)(c)9.c.(I), F.S., state agencies must report all ransomware incidents and
any cybersecurity incidents of severity levels 3-5 to the CSOC and the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement (FDLE) Cybercrime Office within specific timeframes. The bill narrows this
reporting requirement, requiring an agency to report only to the CSOC, not to the FDLE.
However, the agency must now report all ransomware incidents and cybersecurity incidents,
regardless of their severity level, and must do so no later than 12 hours (for cybersecurity
incidents) or 6 hours (for ransomware incidents) after discovery of the incident.
After such a notification, the CSOC must immediately notify the FDLE Cybercrime Office and
provide regular reports on the incident’s status, preserve forensic data; and provide aid to the BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 12
Cybercrime’s investigate efforts; if the chief information security officer (CISO) finds that such
efforts do not impede remediation of the incident and that there is no risk to the public or to
critical state functions. The CSOC must also immediately notify the chief information officer
(CIO) and CISO of any ransomware or cybersecurity incident reported by an agency. Within 24
hours of receipt of such information, the CISO, rather than the CSOC, must notify within a
secure environment the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of
incidents with a severity level of 3-5.
Similarly, the bill amends s. 282.318(3)(a), F.S., to require the CSOC to immediately notify the
CIO and CISO of all confirmed or suspected incidents or threats to state agency IT resources.
Local Government Notifications to CSOC
Section 5 removes the requirement that a local government report any cybersecurity incident
determined to be level 3, 4, or 5 to the Cybercrime Office of FDLE and the sheriff who has
jurisdiction over the local government. The bill instead requires a local government to report a
cybersecurity incident to CSOC within 12 hours of discovery and to report a ransomware
incident within 6 hours after discovery.
After CSOC receives such a report from a local government, it must immediately notify the
FDLE Cybercrime Office and the local sheriff with jurisdiction over the local government. The
CSOC must provide these entities with regular reports on the status of the incident, preserve
forensic data to support a subsequent investigation, and provide aid to the investigative efforts of
the Cybercrime Office upon the office’s request if the state CISO finds that the investigation
does not impede remediation of the incident and that there is no risk to the public and no risk to
critical state functions. This may be interpreted to allow, at the CISO’s discretion, the CSOC’s
provision of incident reports and assistance to the FDLE and local sheriff, based on the CISO’s
determination of impediment to remediation.
Similarly, the bill requires the CSOC to immediately notify the CISO of the reported incident.
The state CISO must notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives in a secure environment, no later than 24 hours after receiving report of the
incident.
A local government is permitted, but not required, to report a level 1 or 2 cybersecurity incident
to the CSOC. If the CSOC receives this optional report, it must conduct the same notifications
and reporting as is required for a local government’s report of a level 3-5 cybersecurity incident.
Quarterly Incident Reports from CSOC
The CSOC must now additionally distribute its quarterly consolidated incident report to the
Governor, Attorney General, and executive director of the FDLE, in addition to the President of
the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Cybersecurity Advisory Council.
Cybersecurity Briefings
The bill requires the DMS, through the FLDS, to provide cybersecurity briefings to the members
of any legislative committee or subcommittee that is responsible for policy matters that relate to
cybersecurity. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 13
Section 282.318(10), F.S., is amended to allow legislative committees or subcommittees that are
responsible for cybersecurity-related policy to hold closed meetings for the purpose of briefing
the body on records that are confidential and exempt pursuant to s. 282.318(5), F.S. The bill
directs that such meetings must be closed by the respective body pursuant to its rules, if the
briefing includes records made confidential and exempt pursuant to s. 282.318(5) and (6), F.S.,
which includes portions of risk assessments, evaluations, external audits, and other agency
cybersecurity reports; and state agency IT resources.
56
The bill also provides that a legislative
committee or subcommittee must maintain the confidential and exempt status of such records.
This is duplicative of s. 11.0431, F.S., which requires the Legislature to maintain exempt or
confidential and exempt records in the same manner required by the agency.
Cybersecurity Advisory Council
Section 6 amends s. 282.319, F.S., to change the membership requirements of the Advisory
Council. The bill replaces the requirement that the Governor appoint a water treatment facility
representative as one of the three representatives from critical infrastructure sectors, with a
requirement that one of the members be a representative of a utility provider. The bill also adds a
representative of local government to the Council’s overall required membership.
The bill states that legislative members of legislative committees or subcommittees that are
responsible for cybersecurity policy must be invited to attend Advisory Council meetings,
including any portion closed to the public pursuant to s. 286.011, F.S., and s. 24(b), Art. I of the
State Constitution.
Agency Chief Information Security Officer
Section 4 requires each agency’s
57
annually designated information security manager to ensure
compliance with cybersecurity governance and with the state’s enterprise security program and
incident response plan. The manager must coordinate with his or her agency’s information
security personnel and the CSOC.
Florida Center for Cybersecurity
Section 7 provides that the Florida Center for Cybersecurity may also be referred to as “Cyber
Florida.” The bill clarifies that Cyber Florida operates under the discretion of the University of
South Florida’s (USF) president or designee. The USF president may assign, with the USF board
of trustee’s approval, Cyber Florida to a college within USF that has a strong emphasis on
cybersecurity, technology, or computer sciences and engineering.
The bill allows Cyber Florida, at the request of the DMS, FLDS, or other state agency, to assist
any state-funded initiatives that relate to: (1) cybersecurity training, professional development,
and education for state and local government employees, and (2) increasing the cybersecurity
effectiveness of the state and local government technology platforms and infrastructure.
56
Section 282.318(6), F.S., makes exempt from public meetings laws any portion of a meeting that would reveal documents
that are confidential and exempt under s. 282.318(5), F.S.
57
This excludes Cabinet-level agencies. See, s. 282.0041(34), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 14
The bill also clarifies the mission and goals of Cyber Florida.
Miscellaneous
Section 2 defines terms used in ch. 282, F.S.
Section 3 updates cross-references to conform to updates made in s. 282.0051, F.S., by section 2.
The bill updates reporting deadlines throughout to reflect a 15-30 day grace period after the
calendar-year or quarterly reporting timeframe.
The bill updates a reference from “ESF CYBER” to “ESF 20”
58
to reflect the current Emergency
Support Function for cybersecurity emergency needs, developed as part of the state
comprehensive emergency management plan, pursuant to s. 252.35, F.S.
Section 8 provides that the bill takes effect July 1, 2024.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
Not applicable. The mandate restrictions do not apply because the bill does not require
counties and municipalities to spend funds, reduce counties’ or municipalities’ ability to
raise revenue, or reduce the percentage of state tax shared with counties and
municipalities.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
Section 2 deletes the current requirement in s. 282.0051(5), F.S., that the Department of
Management Services (DMS) retrieve or disclose data only pursuant to a shared-data
agreement with the agency that holds the subject data. Additionally, the bill contemplates
Florida Digital Services’ (FLDS) handling of “enterprise digital data” (defined as all state
data, which includes public records or documents that are exempt from disclosure as a
public record). Although the bill directs that “enterprise digital data must be maintained
in accordance with chapter 119”, it is unclear that this will achieve the full statutory pubic
records exemption protections. Public records law exists throughout the Florida statutes
and Constitution, not just in ch. 119, F.S.
Additionally, the act of locating or transferring data outside the originating agency may
undermine the document’s status as an exempt public record. It may also complicate the
individual’s duty to provide access to a public record if it is unable to access or organize
its stored documents according to its known process. Lastly, because the FLDS may
consider itself a custodian of all enterprise data, it may use its discretion to release
58
Florida Department of Emergency Management, Emergency Support Function 20- Cybersecurity Annex (2022),
https://portal.floridadisaster.org/preparedness/External/CEMP/2022%20State%20CEMP%20ESF%2020%20Annex.pdf (last
visited Jan. 31, 2024). BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 15
exempt (but not confidential and exempt) records without the originating agency’s
knowledge or approval. The FLDS’ basis for the sharing or release of such data would
likely be very different from the originating agency’s basis. This could undermine the
basis for the exemption and result in certain exempt documents being classified as public
records in virtue of their prior release by the FLDS.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
Open Meetings
Meetings of the Legislature must be open and noticed as provided in article. III, section
4(e), of the Florida Constitution, except with respect to those meetings exempted by the
Legislature pursuant to article I, section 24, Florida Constitution, or specifically closed by
the Constitution.
59
The Legislature must adopt rules which provide that all legislative
committee and subcommittee meetings of each house and joint conference committee
meetings be open and noticed.
60
Such rules must also provide:
[A]ll prearranged gatherings, between more than two members of the
legislature, or between the governor, the president of the senate, or the speaker
of the house of representatives, the purpose of which is to agree upon formal
legislative action that will be taken at a subsequent time, or at which formal
legislative action is taken, regarding pending legislation or amendments, shall
be reasonably open to the public. All open meetings shall be subject to order
and decorum. This section shall be implemented and defined by the rules of
each house, and such rules shall control admission to the floor of each
legislative chamber and may, where reasonably necessary for security
purposes or to protect a witness appearing before a committee, provide for the
closure of committee meetings. Each house shall be the sole judge for the
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of this section.
Rule 1.44 of the Florida Senate requires that all meetings at which legislative business
61
is discussed between two or more members of the Legislature be open to the public,
unless, at the sole discretion of the President after consultation with appropriate
authorities—the meeting concerns measures to address security, espionage, sabotage,
attack, and other acts of terrorism, or for the protection of a witness as required by law.
59
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24.
60
FLA. CONST. art. III, s. 4(e).
61
“Legislative business” is defined as “issues pending before, or upon which foreseeable action is reasonably expected to be
taken by the Senate, a Senate committee, or a Senate subcommittee.” Fla. Senate R. 1.44. BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 16
Lines 503-505 allows the Department of Management Services (DMS) to provide
cybersecurity briefings to the members of any legislative committees or subcommittees
that are responsible for matters relating to cybersecurity. This does not appear to
contemplate that the briefings occur at a meeting of the legislative committee, but rather
in private. If the briefings involve more than one legislator at a time, the meeting is a
public meeting subject to open meetings laws and must be publicly noticed, unless the
Senate President has closed the meeting pursuant to Senate Rule 1.44.
Additionally, lines 523 through 534 state that legislative committees or subcommittees
that are responsible for matters that relate to cybersecurity may hold closed meetings, if
approved by the respective legislative body under the rules of such legislative body. This
is duplicative of Senate Rule 1.44. Additionally, it may conflict with article III, section
4(e), of the Florida Constitution, because the statute—rather than a legislative rule or
constitutional provision—provides for the methods in which a Legislative body may
close its meetings (even though the statute contemplates legislative rule).
Legislative Authority to Review State Agencies
The bill’s provision of DMS’ authority to provide briefings to specific legislative
committees may be unnecessary. Senate Rule 2.2 allows any permanent standing
committee and standing subcommittee to “maintain a continuous review of the work of
the state agencies concerned with their subject areas and the performance of the functions
of government within each subject area” and to “invite public officials [and] employees
… to appear before the committee or subcommittee to submit information.” The
committees may also inspect and investigate the records, data, operation, and other
related items of any state public agency. The chair of each standing committee and
subcommittee may to issue subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, and other necessary
process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence.
Access to Private Infrastructure, Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Lines 506-510 grant the DMS, acting through the FLDS, authority to obtain access to
public or private infrastructure that hosts enterprise digital data. This appears to allow
government access to private property without any basis. This may violate the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that individual privacy and security
must be safeguarded against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.
62
“[S]earches
conducted outside the judicial process ... are per se unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment—subject only to a few ... exceptions.”
63
One exception is for administrative
searches.
64
To be constitutional, the subject of an administrative search must, among
other things, be afforded an opportunity to obtain precompliance review before a neutral
decision maker.
65
This rule “applies to commercial premises as well as to homes.”
66
.
62
Camara v. Mun. Ct. of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387, U.S. 523, 528 (1967).
63
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009).
64
See, Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 534.
65
See See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545.
66
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312 (1978). BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 17
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
Private sector information technology (IT) and cybersecurity companies may have new
opportunities to contract with the Department of Management Services (DMS) in its
implementation of provisions of the bill.
A private entity with a contract with an individual agency for the storage or other
function related to agency data may incur legal fees relating to the attempted
renegotiation of its ongoing contract.
C. Government Sector Impact:
The bill will likely have a significant fiscal impact on state agency resources used to
implement new guidelines and trainings as required to transfer data ownership and related
cybersecurity processes.
There will likely be a transition of public records requests functions to the DMS as it
takes on its new role regarding enterprise data, and this could impact the DMS’ need for
additional staff and trainings and certifications required to respond to such requests and
handle specialized data in the manner required by federal law.
Individual agencies and the DMS may be subject to higher litigation fees for the
resolution of public records exemption disputes that arise from the new framework of
state agency data sharing implemented by the bill.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
Line 150 requires the Department of Legal Affairs (DLA), Department of Financial Services
(DFS), and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to adopt, by rule,
standards that facilitate the deployment of applications or solutions to the existing enterprise
system in a controlled and phased approach. It is not clear that this constitutes sufficient
rulemaking authority for those agencies to adopt rules; the rulemaking authority may need to be
placed in sections of law specific to their agency authority.
Line 323 refers to “threats of state agency information technology.” It may intend to refer to
“threats to state agency information technology.”
It is not clear when or who must assess the severity level of a cybersecurity incident that occurs
at a state agency. The bill deletes the state agency requirement to perform this assessment (see
lines 408-409), but, then still requires certain actions based on the severity level determination
(see, e.g., lines 428-436).
BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 18
The bill requires the chief information security officer (CISO) to notify the President of the
Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of certain cybersecurity and ransomware
incidents in a “secure environment.” This is an undefined term that can be a term of art in both
technological and security realms, and it is therefore unclear what standards the bill requires. The
agency’s or local government’s initial report of the cybersecurity or ransomware incidents is not
required to be made in a secure environment—it may be unnecessary to require a higher standard
of security at a subsequent reporting..
VII. Related Issues:
The bill changes the Florida Digital Services’ (FLDS) role from the creation of standards and
oversight of the implementation of those standards to operation of information technology (IT)
and cybersecurity efforts. It is unclear what functions are included in this role, and it may need to
be more clearly defined. For example, it is unclear:
What enterprise security “efforts” the FLDS must lead (lines 39-40);
How the Department of Management Services (DMS), through the FLDS, will “ensure”
independent project oversight of agency IT projects (line 78); and
What a cultivation of strategic partnerships with the private sector to leverage expertise,
foster collaboration, and advance Florida’s technological capabilities would entail (lines 252-
257).
Enterprise Digital Data, Impairment of Contracts
Through its definition of the term “enterprise digital data,” the bill allows the DMS, acting
through the FLDS, to take an ownership interest in data that belongs to other agencies. This
includes the duties to assess and monitor the data, and the general duty to safeguard it.
Additionally, the bill allows the DMS to “obtain immediate access to public or private
infrastructure” that hosts such data. This implicates contracts that are currently in effect between
private entities and individual state agencies that may require the data to be held in a specific
manner, or to not be shared with any other entity. It is not clear that the DMS would be able to
assume the individual agency’s current contracting authority.
Article I, section 10 of the Florida Constitution prohibits the state from enacting laws that impair the
obligation of contracts. While Florida courts have historically strictly applied this restriction, they
have exempted laws when they find there is an overriding public necessity for the state to exercise its
police powers.
67
This exception extends to laws that are reasonable and necessary to serve an
important public purpose,
68
to include protecting the public’s health, safety or welfare.
69
For a statute
to offend the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contract, the statute must have the
effect of changing substantive rights of the parties to an existing contract. Any retroactive application
of a statute affecting substantive contractual rights would be constitutionally suspect.
70
67
Park Benziger & Co. v. Southern Wine & Spirits, Inc., 391 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1980).
68
Yellow Cab Co. v. Dade County, 412 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982), petition den. 424 So.2d 764 (Fla. 1982).
69
Khoury v Carvel Homes South, Inc., 403 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), petition den. 412 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1981).
70
Tri-Properties, Inc. v. Moonspinner Condominium Association, Inc., 447 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 19
Enterprise Digital Data, Public Records
This broad ‘ownership’ of agency data also implicates public record exemptions that apply only
when the exempt information is held by a specific agency. Therefore, documents “shared” with
the FLDS via its assertion of authority over enterprise digital data may lose their exempt status.
Enterprise Digital Data, Trade Secrets
Section 119.0715, F.S., makes trade secrets
71
that are held by an agency confidential and exempt
from public inspection and copying. An agency may disclose a trade secret to an officer or
employee of another agency or governmental entity whose use of the trade secret is within the
scope of his or her lawful duties and responsibilities.
72
It is unclear whether the role of the DMS
in safeguarding, monitoring, and measuring to assess enterprise digital data equates to a use of a
trade secret within his or her lawful duties and responsibilities. Additionally, it is unclear how
the DMS will be made aware of the data’s status as a trade secret, as such communication
usually occurs with the individual recipient agency at the time the document is transmitted to it.
Enterprise Digital Data, Attorney-Client privilege
Certain agencies, such as the Department of Legal Affairs, hold information in the scope of their
role as an attorney. For attorney-client privilege to apply in Florida, a communication between
the lawyer and client must have been made during the actual rendition of legal services to the
client and be “confidential,” meaning “it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons” except
as provided in the Florida Evidence Code.
73
This sharing of data with the DMS may violate the
attorney’s ethical requirement to guard the confidentiality of documentation regarding her
representation.
74
Enterprise Digital Data, Federal Policy
Certain agencies hold data pursuant to federal agreements. The FDLE cites the removal of the
DMS’ requirement to enter into a data sharing agreement to access agency data as a possible
violation risk of the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA), FBI Criminal
Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), and other federal law.
75
This may also disrupt agreements to access federal data on the
71
A “trade secret” is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process
that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily
ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the
subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. See, 688.002(4), F.S.
72
But compare with s. 252.88, F.S., which prohibits the agency from disclosing a trade secret without a final determination
by the EPA’s Administrator.
73
Sections 90.502(1)(c) and (2), F.S.; Deanna Rahming, FLORIDA BAR NEWS, The Attorney-Client Privilege v. the
Confidentiality Rule: A Lawyer’s Conundrum in the Use and Application of the Evidence Code v. the Rules of Professional
Conduct (Jun. 20, 2023), https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/the-attorney-client-privilege-v-the-confidentiality-
rule-a-lawyers-conundrum-in-the-use-and-application-of-the-evidence-code-v-the-rules-of-professional-conduct/ (last visited
Jan. 31, 2024).
74
Rule 4-1.6, R.Reg. the Fla. Bar.
75
FDLE, SB 1662 Agency Analysis (Jan. 12, 2024) (on file with the Committee on Governmental Oversight and
Accountability). BILL: CS/SB 1662 Page 20
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Consumer Sentinel Network, which is limited to federal, state,
or local law enforcement
76
agencies.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 110.205, 282.0041,
282.0051, 282.00515, 282.318, 282.3185, 282.319, and 1004.444.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
CS by Governmental Oversight and Accountability on January 29, 2024:
Removes provisions of the bill that designate certain information security personnel
positions as selected exempt positions.
Removes provisions of the bill that require each state agency head to designate a chief
information security officer that reports to the Florida Digital Services’ (FLDS) chief
information officer, and instead amends the role of the currently-serving agency
information security manager to “ensure compliance with cybersecurity governance
and with the state’s enterprise security program and incident response plan.” This
amendment also requires the agency information security manager to coordinate with
information security personnel within his or her agency and the Cybersecurity
Operations Center within the FLDS.
Updates the mission, goals, and responsibilities of the Florida Center for
Cybersecurity (“Cyber Florida”) housed within University of South Florida (USF),
and authorizes the USF president to assign the Center to an appropriate college within
the university, with approval of the board of trustees.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.
76
Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Sentinel Network, https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/consumer-sentinel-network
(last visited Jan. 31, 2024). See, e.g., s. 570.077, F.S., which makes criminal or civil intelligence or investigative information,
or any other information held by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as part of a joint or multiagency
examination with another state or federal agency, confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1), F.S., The DACS may only
obtain, use, and release the information in accordance with the joint or multiagency agreement, or in furtherance of its official
duties and responsibilities.