Mandatory sex offender registration for Penal Code section 289, subdivision (d) (sexual penetration by a foreign object) violates neither equal protection nor due process. Following his no contest plea to one count of section 289, subdivision (d), appellant was granted probation and ordered to register as a sex offender pursuant to the mandatory provision of section 290. The court denied his motion to bar the mandatory provision and appellant appealed, claiming an equal protection and due process violation. The court rejected the equal protection challenge, finding that appellant was not similarly situated to sex offenders not subject to mandatory registration. The victim here was an intoxicated stranger. As such, she was not a consensual participant as described in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1185. There was also no valid comparison to such offenses as rape of an intoxicated spouse (sec. 262, subd. (a)(2), which does not trigger mandatory registration, because of the different relationships involved (i.e., crimes against strangers versus crimes against a spouse). Appellant’s due process challenge based on a privacy right claim failed, with the court noting that convicted sex offenders have attenuated privacy rights which are not infringed upon by the regulatory and nonpunitive mandatory sex offender registration requirement.