Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.

[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.

They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?

[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.

They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?

Were they? Or it was left on a table and she took it?

[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.

They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?

Were they? Or it was left on a table and she took it?

Well, she’s not in jail, so….But I understand context clues. Call it a gift, call it a curse in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.

They still could, let's stay tuned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.

They still could, let's stay tuned.

Lol. The intelligence level (or lack there of) of this area never ceases to amaze me.

[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.

They aren't accusing her of theft. And a judge ordered them to give her the information relating to her children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They aren't accusing her of theft. And a judge ordered them to give her the information relating to her children

The amount of people in this county who think Rizzoli and Isles is reality tv is astounding.

[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.

They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?

Were they? Or it was left on a table and she took it?

Well, she’s not in jail, so….But I understand context clues. Call it a gift, call it a curse in 2023.

All I’m saying is that her claim that FCPS sent her wrong data is a little different than her taking data that wasn’t explicitly handed to her.

[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.

They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?

No, they weren’t. She made a request. The files on the thumb drive that she found and took were not in the scope of her request. As soon as she realized that she should have deleted them and notified FCPS.

She didn’t. Because she is trying to hurt FCPS and doesn’t mind hurting thousands of SN families to accomplish that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They aren't accusing her of theft. And a judge ordered them to give her the information relating to her children

The judge did not give the order for her to receive the data for THOUSANDS of other students.

She knew this and took/kept/distributed it any way.

[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.

They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?

No, they weren’t. She made a request. The files on the thumb drive that she found and took were not in the scope of her request. As soon as she realized that she should have deleted them and notified FCPS.

She didn’t. Because she is trying to hurt FCPS and doesn’t mind hurting thousands of SN families to accomplish that.

Based on the FCPS statement she received her FOIA documents. Completely separately she "found" other items in the room that were not given to her and she took. Just because she makes a request for 1 does not give her a free pass to then take anything within sight. I hope FCPS pursues thus so we all learn the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.

You don’t know that they are not pursuing that or that it’s in motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They aren't accusing her of theft. And a judge ordered them to give her the information relating to her children

The judge did not give the order for her to receive the data for THOUSANDS of other students.

She knew this and took/kept/distributed it any way.

You’re confusing a lot of details here. Mostly from 2021. But ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.

They still could, let's stay tuned.

Lol. The intelligence level (or lack there of) of this area never ceases to amaze me.

We are trying to have a civil discussion here. No need for you to be a kunt about it.