Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Fcps should stop waste money anywhere else and start hiring top IT company to manage its data security issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole situation is beyond frustrating. I’m a sped teacher here in fcps. My child was also part of the leaked info. What will happen is us overworked sped teachers will have to a bunch of training now and jump through more hoops. I sure as hell hope the fcps idiots who messed up are fired and fcps is held accountable. They always seem to throw it back on us teachers so they appear they (fcps) are doing something.

+1. Also a sped teacher and got the notice for my own children. I’m sure anything extra that’s related to this will be dumped on our plates and once again nothing will be taken off in exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else wondering how the thumb drives came into Callie’s possession? Did the paralegal need to leave the room to photocopy something, ask a question, go to the bathroom, etc. and Callie conveniently scooped up the thumb drives? Seems to fit with something she would do. Can we get a FOIA regarding the specifics of the investigation?
She did something similar before but it was FCPS employee info and got away with it. Now she is emboldened to strike again. I think she mistakenly thought everyone would be upset with FCPS and not her. I’m all in for a class action lawsuit. She won before because it was FCPS that sued, FCPS that gave the info, and also FCPS that had info published publicly. I think if the parents sue, the outcome would be very different.

“ The independent investigation ultimately concluded that a unique set of circumstances led to the inadvertent disclosure. Despite preplanning for this unusual review, it appears that this incident occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review, who copied the files and removed them from FCPS property. ”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

Yeah, I'm sure you've studied FERPA and privacy laws extensively....

I am a lawyer, though not a privacy lawyer. But you also don’t need to be a privacy lawyer to understand that FERPA and state privacy laws would not limit Orttinger’s right to do what she wants with information provided to her by FCPS in response to a FOIA or parallel state law request. fCPS had a legal obligation not to give other students’ information to Oettinger. But Oettinger would not have any similar obligation (because someone who receives information in response to a FOIA request may publicize that information … that’s the whole point of FOIA and sunshine laws, and there is also a First Amendment element).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.

As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.

As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.

It is if it’s not in the scope of her request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.

If she “stole” the data, fcps would have pressed charges. Michele Reid would have had her arrested, not try to help her calm down the rabid parents going after Callie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.

As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.

It also sounds like they were lying on a table and she picked it up and pocketed it to look at later.

[Anonymous]

I think Callie is a victim of her own confirmation bias. Even if not criminal, what she did with the data was unethical, and she really thought everyone would laud her for it because she is in her own bubble, probably getting constant encouragement from those who agree with her. Why else would we all need an email that lets us know she affirmed, with her lawyer, that she deleted all the data. That wouldn't have happened if she didn't have an inkling that what she did was wrong.

[Anonymous]

She wants to burn down FCPS and doesn’t care who she hurts in the process. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?

Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.

She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.

She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.

These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.

That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.

They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.

As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.

The literal quote from FCPS states that the data was not given to her. She took it from somewhere in the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wants to burn down FCPS and doesn’t care who she hurts in the process. Disgusting.

Fcps doesn’t need Callie for that. They do a phenomenal job on their own.