Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

She is exploiting details about the children’s placement both on the individual level and in summary. Parents never gave consent for her to have any of the data. Let alone pick and choose what she uses for her own purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

That’s it! The children’s names they say are popping up are attorneys!!! It’s a great twist on words as technically accurate. Attorneys all have parents, and are someone’s kids. So technically not lying, but highly misleading.

That she read the data herself is misusing--and immoral--in my opinion.
And the issue with the partial redaction is that this how people piece things together: For instance, the attorney's name, in conjunction with the school and the dates can be revealing to local contexts--it's not like many kids in an elementary school have an attorney on their case in any given month of a year. So of all the parents who use a search term for their school on her site to see if their data is there, I'm guessing some may know who that kid is--and now they know more private things like how much was spent on their treatment. This is the thing--blacking out kid's name doesn't make them unidentifiable--and a parent may have shared one bit of information, like recommend the attorney they used to another parent--that now gives that other parent more information than the original parent meant to share. Oettinger seems to be taking risks with other people's children's private data in posting these things.

Exactly. She never should have even read it. Let alone pick and choose what data she was going to use for her own purposes.

She did not have consent. She should have immediately deleted it as soon as she realized that she had it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

Nobody is defending FCPS. And Callie can expose FCPS's shortcomings without retaining the confidential information of thousands of minors. That is what people are objecting to. They don't want some random parent having their child's information, regardless of how she obtained it. But you already know that. Not sure why you are defending her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

Nobody is defending FCPS. And Callie can expose FCPS's shortcomings without retaining the confidential information of thousands of minors. That is what people are objecting to. They don't want some random parent having their child's information, regardless of how she obtained it. But you already know that. Not sure why you are defending her.

Exactly.

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent first.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

That’s it! The children’s names they say are popping up are attorneys!!! It’s a great twist on words as technically accurate. Attorneys all have parents, and are someone’s kids. So technically not lying, but highly misleading.

That she read the data herself is misusing--and immoral--in my opinion.
And the issue with the partial redaction is that this how people piece things together: For instance, the attorney's name, in conjunction with the school and the dates can be revealing to local contexts--it's not like many kids in an elementary school have an attorney on their case in any given month of a year. So of all the parents who use a search term for their school on her site to see if their data is there, I'm guessing some may know who that kid is--and now they know more private things like how much was spent on their treatment. This is the thing--blacking out kid's name doesn't make them unidentifiable--and a parent may have shared one bit of information, like recommend the attorney they used to another parent--that now gives that other parent more information than the original parent meant to share. Oettinger seems to be taking risks with other people's children's private data in posting these things.

Exactly. She never should have even read it. Let alone pick and choose what data she was going to use for her own purposes.

She did not have consent. She should have immediately deleted it as soon as she realized that she had it.

How do you know what’s in the data until you read the data?

[Anonymous]

where exactly did she post all of the files? were students easily identifiable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

That’s it! The children’s names they say are popping up are attorneys!!! It’s a great twist on words as technically accurate. Attorneys all have parents, and are someone’s kids. So technically not lying, but highly misleading.

That she read the data herself is misusing--and immoral--in my opinion.
And the issue with the partial redaction is that this how people piece things together: For instance, the attorney's name, in conjunction with the school and the dates can be revealing to local contexts--it's not like many kids in an elementary school have an attorney on their case in any given month of a year. So of all the parents who use a search term for their school on her site to see if their data is there, I'm guessing some may know who that kid is--and now they know more private things like how much was spent on their treatment. This is the thing--blacking out kid's name doesn't make them unidentifiable--and a parent may have shared one bit of information, like recommend the attorney they used to another parent--that now gives that other parent more information than the original parent meant to share. Oettinger seems to be taking risks with other people's children's private data in posting these things.

Exactly. She never should have even read it. Let alone pick and choose what data she was going to use for her own purposes.

She did not have consent. She should have immediately deleted it as soon as she realized that she had it.

How do you know what’s in the data until you read the data?

She posted herself that she immediately realized she got the private data of a lot of kids. That is all she needed to know to know she didn't have the consent from the children/parents whose data it was to access it. She did the right thing in immediately placing a state complaint. She did the wrong thing in diving into the private data without consent. If she explored any data, did anything with that data after making that complaint where she reports that she knew she got something that she shoudn't have --that's what parents view as using the data without their consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

That’s it! The children’s names they say are popping up are attorneys!!! It’s a great twist on words as technically accurate. Attorneys all have parents, and are someone’s kids. So technically not lying, but highly misleading.

That she read the data herself is misusing--and immoral--in my opinion.
And the issue with the partial redaction is that this how people piece things together: For instance, the attorney's name, in conjunction with the school and the dates can be revealing to local contexts--it's not like many kids in an elementary school have an attorney on their case in any given month of a year. So of all the parents who use a search term for their school on her site to see if their data is there, I'm guessing some may know who that kid is--and now they know more private things like how much was spent on their treatment. This is the thing--blacking out kid's name doesn't make them unidentifiable--and a parent may have shared one bit of information, like recommend the attorney they used to another parent--that now gives that other parent more information than the original parent meant to share. Oettinger seems to be taking risks with other people's children's private data in posting these things.

Exactly. She never should have even read it. Let alone pick and choose what data she was going to use for her own purposes.

She did not have consent. She should have immediately deleted it as soon as she realized that she had it.

How do you know what’s in the data until you read the data?

She posted herself that she immediately realized she got the private data of a lot of kids. That is all she needed to know to know she didn't have the consent from the children/parents whose data it was to access it. She did the right thing in immediately placing a state complaint. She did the wrong thing in diving into the private data without consent. If she explored any data, did anything with that data after making that complaint where she reports that she knew she got something that she shoudn't have --that's what parents view as using the data without their consent.

+1

The moment she discovered it she should have deleted it. As any person with morals would do. Certainly as a SN parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

That’s it! The children’s names they say are popping up are attorneys!!! It’s a great twist on words as technically accurate. Attorneys all have parents, and are someone’s kids. So technically not lying, but highly misleading.

No need to be a twat about it.

Truth hurting?

It is true that she shared details about children’s cases/placement. It’s also true that you’re a twat.

When people lose arguments, they resort to name calling. Thanks for conceding defeat! Callie for Governor!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS sped services have been a disaster, I don't know how anyone can defend them. More people like Callie are needed to expose the illegal denial of services and reimbursements

If she wants to rally up other parents to do this, great. Get their consent.

She should not be exploiting other families’ personal details without their consent and for her own purposes.

It’s abhorrent.

What is she exploiting, can someone explain, all the documents and posts I've seen are her talking about high level concerns at the school and regional level that dont name anyone specific.

That’s it! The children’s names they say are popping up are attorneys!!! It’s a great twist on words as technically accurate. Attorneys all have parents, and are someone’s kids. So technically not lying, but highly misleading.

No need to be a twat about it.

Truth hurting?

It is true that she shared details about children’s cases/placement. It’s also true that you’re a twat.

When people lose arguments, they resort to name calling. Thanks for conceding defeat! Callie for Governor!!

Is that why some PP was calling people “mentally ill” for not wanting their kids’ info in the hands of this vile woman? It’s truly indefensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s look at it this way. If someone breaks into Targets IT systems and steals the data, that’s a criminal act. If Target willingly hands it over, Target is the culpable party. If you sue Callie, she’ll file for bankruptcy, we get no benefit, and this stuff keeps happening. FCPS cares nothing about privacy of data. If they did, they would have spent the money on it last time this happened.

Nope. FCPS didn't "willingly" hand it over--it was accidental. And made more likely to happen by the endless badgering for information by Callie in an already stressed public school system. The real crime is that Callie "willingly" shared that information with others and published it online.
Unintentional leaks don't allow you to do whatever you want with the goods. We can sue Callie who intentionally acted wrongly with information AND we can lobby for better privacy protection. I think it's incredibly important to punish her and to deter people who think they can act with impunity with data that doesn't belong to them because they have some cause they are invested in.

Actually a judge - you know, someone who has a legal degree - disagrees with you. FCPS has an obligation to protect data, like Target does. If the current staff can’t handle it, they have an obligation to ensure someone is in place to ensure the laws are followed. Doctors are some of the most stressed and busy professionals. Yet you would sue if they pulled this with your data, as should you.

Please clarify this for me--the judge ruling was on FCPS's rights vs Oettinger--which of course FCPS has an obligation to protect data that they did not. That's not in dispute. But did the judge rule that parents have no rights over whether Oettinger can hold onto their kids' data without their consent once she knew it was private? That it's okay if she shows it to others without their consent? That it's okay if she chooses how to redact, share and post it without their consent? I don't believe there has been any consideration of that at all in any of the legal rulings and that is the question at hand for many of the parents on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Medically protected information of minors that she has stolen. I am looking forward to attending her trial and making an impact statement before her sentencing.

Stealing = someone handed you something and sent you on your merry way. lol. Trial. Sentencing. This comment sums up the stupidity of this entire thread, and multiplies it by 50.

+100

There is a poster here who will not stop with the stupidity. Callie is not going to be on trial. No one can make her sign anything about the data. She has said she won't use it. The situation sucks and I'd be bothered but she is not a criminal and she is not going to jail.

I think the point about her signing something is not that someone could "make" her, but if she wanted to seem like she truly was on parents' side--or at least not going to do something nefarious with the data, she could do something more substantial than say "trust me." I agree, she's not going to jail--I think the question is still open about the success of a class action civil suit. Again, I think affected people should talk to an organization who specializes in digital privacy laws to see what their options are--both with addressing FCPS's lack of data security and the fact that a parent is now holding the private data of many children and seems to have done things like post partially redacted accounts. I am a parent of a child in FCPS, but not one who received the letter about this breach, but I am very concerned about this as a parent and a citizen.

No one who specializes in digital privacy is going to help the parents going off like crazy people here. You've misrepresented the facts again and again and some of you come off as if you are mentally ill and are trying to incite a mob to harm another person. Any intelligent professional would immediately identify the problem being the school system. The fact that there are posters identifying themselves as FCPS staff posting ignorant, anti-sns parents diatribes doesn't help.

I personally think an organization who specializes in digital privacy would be very interested in a situation that seems to be the case where a single parent through extensive use of the FOIA process and sloppy data security of a public school system gained access to and doesn't have to release the private data of 35k children. What about that doesn't sound 100% mission-aligned for them? It doesn't matter that some parents who are angry say something on an anonymous forum--what matters is this is a deeply problematic situation that we need to have better laws around and need to explore potential consequences currently available for individuals who take advantage of the lack of data security.

An individual didn't take advantage of the lack of data security.

You keep inserting inflammatory and inaccurate language to try to get a mob behind you. It just makes you look crazy.

The problem in this country is the lack of concern large organizations have for our data and that our lawmakers are doing nothing to look out for us.

That's exactly what she did. And she made a point at my child's (and others') expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s look at it this way. If someone breaks into Targets IT systems and steals the data, that’s a criminal act. If Target willingly hands it over, Target is the culpable party. If you sue Callie, she’ll file for bankruptcy, we get no benefit, and this stuff keeps happening. FCPS cares nothing about privacy of data. If they did, they would have spent the money on it last time this happened.

Nope. FCPS didn't "willingly" hand it over--it was accidental. And made more likely to happen by the endless badgering for information by Callie in an already stressed public school system. The real crime is that Callie "willingly" shared that information with others and published it online.
Unintentional leaks don't allow you to do whatever you want with the goods. We can sue Callie who intentionally acted wrongly with information AND we can lobby for better privacy protection. I think it's incredibly important to punish her and to deter people who think they can act with impunity with data that doesn't belong to them because they have some cause they are invested in.

Actually a judge - you know, someone who has a legal degree - disagrees with you. FCPS has an obligation to protect data, like Target does. If the current staff can’t handle it, they have an obligation to ensure someone is in place to ensure the laws are followed. Doctors are some of the most stressed and busy professionals. Yet you would sue if they pulled this with your data, as should you.

Please clarify this for me--the judge ruling was on FCPS's rights vs Oettinger--which of course FCPS has an obligation to protect data that they did not. That's not in dispute. But did the judge rule that parents have no rights over whether Oettinger can hold onto their kids' data without their consent once she knew it was private? That it's okay if she shows it to others without their consent? That it's okay if she chooses how to redact, share and post it without their consent? I don't believe there has been any consideration of that at all in any of the legal rulings and that is the question at hand for many of the parents on this thread.

Honestly, it doesn’t matter who’s got the complaint. The Supreme Court has precedence on these types of situations - think Pentagon Papers. Once they had the info, there is a lot of legal precedent at the state and federal level letting them publish it. If you read the 35 pages of posts, no one who wants to sue Callie has presented a legal basis for doing so. They’ve said they’re pissed, it’s not right, it’s immoral, unfair, called her a lot of names, said she should be arrested, made ridiculous analogies to murder. But none of those are a legal basis. It sucks for sure, but that further justifies why fcps should be spending the money to protect data vs spending millions of dollars in legal fees to recover and do damage control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:where exactly did she post all of the files? were students easily identifiable?

I don't believe she posted all the files anywhere--she says not and we don't know. We also don't know if any of this has been emailed to others, shared with others, where it's stored, if it's secure. She seems to have shared something with a journalist because there's an article on line with some redacted file images and I believe she says she worked with a journalist. My understanding is that she posted redacted information that could make students identifiable to people from their own schools if they had other knowledge.
One reason to consult a legal expert in this area is that they may be able to help parents find out exactly what she did with the data, who else had access, whether additional copies were ever made etc.

[Anonymous]

My goodness this thread getting very tiring, 36 pages! Wondering what is the end games since she is already famous. Is take down Fcps is even possible if it is her end game? I wish all of this waste of energy,arguments, time and money in this case would better be used for improving our kids education.