Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

[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.

It seems you don’t care that FCPS has no process to ensure this doesn’t happen. I don’t know Callie, but at least she scrubbed the data. What happens next time when a nefarious character doesn’t? Then what? What if it’s your kids’s personal non-scrubbed data out there that is used against them in the future. Then will you still feel like it’s not the school’s job? That they’re stressed and it’s a mistake? BS. FCPS has the responsibility to protect data, by state and federal laws. They have failed multiple times and do nothing to change it. And here you are making excuses they’re busy or stressed. What’s next? Blame the kids for having personal information?

Did you not notice that I said "AND" lobby for better privacy protection. But I work with data in a government setting--I know there are data and privacy errors all the time and we have a huge budget to protect this because we work with healthcare data. We have so much more money and there are still tons of human errors. School systems have to share information--they have to share IEP records, they have to share accommodations across teachers--to expect that they will never make mistakes is just unrealistic. Should there be more national level privacy data systems and strict protocol like they have in healthcare--yes, and people are working on that.

But only one person willingly acted wrongly with information and that person needs to be punished. She didn't scrub the data--she shared it identified with others first who decided to scrub the data AND they collectively decided to post it publicly??? She gave others access to the private data of 35000 kids knowingly. How can you POSSIBLY be advocating for not going after her??

As this thread has gone off into a territory with some people saying she should go to jail, others saying she's a hero, and others worrying she's posted all the data online-- I think it's important everyone be accurate. I don't want to be someone contributing to misinformation so in the spirit of getting productive conversation rather than back and forth recriminations--I went back and looked at what I've said to check. I may have wrote this post (I at least thought something like this!) and if so, I wanted to clarify it:

My current understanding is that we really don't know for sure what we shared with others. She wrote that she shared the information with a trusted journalist, but we don't know exactly what she shared though we can see that the journalist posted some images of what looks like sample files on line. We also can see files with partially redacted information posted on her website--files that in my opinion have too much identifiable information even if they don't have names. I don't have the heart to search for more based on what has already been found. I feel like I'm invading others' privacy by searching.

I think any parents whose children's data she had access to and who are not comfortable with this situation need to talk to lawyers with expertise in privacy/digital privacy to find out their options. I also think that it's really important to advocate for better data security from schools. I believe there are other threads focused on that.

I think this conversation is important to have in this space--so I hope everyone can take a step back from anger/frustration and generate productive ideas about what are the options and concerns for parents who are uncomfortable with the idea that a private person has accessed a lot of kids private data and we don't know what she has done/is doing/will do with it--and whether anyone has access to it and the level of security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It seems you don’t care that FCPS has no process to ensure this doesn’t happen. I don’t know Callie, but at least she scrubbed the data. What happens next time when a nefarious character doesn’t? Then what? What if it’s your kids’s personal non-scrubbed data out there that is used against them in the future. Then will you still feel like it’s not the school’s job? That they’re stressed and it’s a mistake? BS. FCPS has the responsibility to protect data, by state and federal laws. They have failed multiple times and do nothing to change it. And here you are making excuses they’re busy or stressed. What’s next? Blame the kids for having personal information?

Did you not notice that I said "AND" lobby for better privacy protection. But I work with data in a government setting--I know there are data and privacy errors all the time and we have a huge budget to protect this because we work with healthcare data. We have so much more money and there are still tons of human errors. School systems have to share information--they have to share IEP records, they have to share accommodations across teachers--to expect that they will never make mistakes is just unrealistic. Should there be more national level privacy data systems and strict protocol like they have in healthcare--yes, and people are working on that.

But only one person willingly acted wrongly with information and that person needs to be punished. She didn't scrub the data--she shared it identified with others first who decided to scrub the data AND they collectively decided to post it publicly??? She gave others access to the private data of 35000 kids knowingly. How can you POSSIBLY be advocating for not going after her??

As this thread has gone off into a territory with some people saying she should go to jail, others saying she's a hero, and others worrying she's posted all the data online-- I think it's important everyone be accurate. I don't want to be someone contributing to misinformation so in the spirit of getting productive conversation rather than back and forth recriminations--I went back and looked at what I've said to check. I may have wrote this post (I at least thought something like this!) and if so, I wanted to clarify it:

My current understanding is that we really don't know for sure what we shared with others. She wrote that she shared the information with a trusted journalist, but we don't know exactly what she shared though we can see that the journalist posted some images of what looks like sample files on line. We also can see files with partially redacted information posted on her website--files that in my opinion have too much identifiable information even if they don't have names. I don't have the heart to search for more based on what has already been found. I feel like I'm invading others' privacy by searching.

I think any parents whose children's data she had access to and who are not comfortable with this situation need to talk to lawyers with expertise in privacy/digital privacy to find out their options. I also think that it's really important to advocate for better data security from schools. I believe there are other threads focused on that.

I think this conversation is important to have in this space--so I hope everyone can take a step back from anger/frustration and generate productive ideas about what are the options and concerns for parents who are uncomfortable with the idea that a private person has accessed a lot of kids private data and we don't know what she has done/is doing/will do with it--and whether anyone has access to it and the level of security.

All great points. What baffles me on this is

1) why weren’t these people so irate 2 years ago when the same thing happened….with her? Is it the letter that came home or is everyone suddenly an advocate for digital privacy or are there paid actors on this post to take the heat off fcps?

2) Why is there such outrage she gave the data to a trusted reporter? Would you prefer she kept her findings quiet and sold the data on the black market and you weren’t aware for the next 10 years? Is this really a case of ignorance is bliss? With as common as these leaks are, this is an actual possibility. Nobody should be given more data than they are entitled to, period. Not one. Not 35,000.

I get people have questions. But there are people on this post inflaming the situation greatly with outright disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

lol. Accusing someone of being obtuse and then proceeding to say what fcps did isn’t relevant.

And that’s the definition of….irony!

[Anonymous]

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.

That is only because you know nothing about the governing law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

+1

How could she do this to other sped families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OH nice-Here are a few of Callie’s friends from SEPTA here to “advocate”

You have no respect because all you do is hate on educators, sue, file complaints, and steer qualified professionals from the county.

Clearly- plenty of people find this “advocating” vile. Thank you parents for speaking up against Callie!

CALLIE IS IN NO WAY AFFILIATED WITH SEPTA!!!!!!!

[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: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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

+1

How could she do this to other sped families?

She knew the pain that this would cause. Her children have had their information exposed.

She published information about my child. A large number of parents at our former school would know that it was my child.

Callie knew the pain and still did it. I would be surprised if this did not open her up to a civil lawsuit.

[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: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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

+1

How could she do this to other sped families?

My only guess is she wanted to put on fcps on blast to ensure her kid’s data didn’t get released to someone else that might publicize it unredeacted.

[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:

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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

+1

How could she do this to other sped families?

She knew the pain that this would cause. Her children have had their information exposed.

She published information about my child. A large number of parents at our former school would know that it was my child.

Callie knew the pain and still did it. I would be surprised if this did not open her up to a civil lawsuit.

Then I guess you’ll be surprised.

[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: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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

lol. Accusing someone of being obtuse and then proceeding to say what fcps did isn’t relevant.

And that’s the definition of….irony!

It's not relevant. They made a separate mistake. SHE then made her own. FCPS didn't force her to not notify them, return the information, or destroy it. SHE did that on her own.

You're not ironic at all. You're an idiot.

[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:

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.

FCPS gave her the data and granted her access, why would she be at fault? She didn't hack into a system or get it without approval it was given to her by FCPS and documented with formal requests and grants.

Try to keep up. This is not hard and you're being DELIBERATELY obtuse.

FCPS made error 1. That's not pertinent to this thread.

Then SHE made the separate error of recognizing what was sent and not have the moral compass to alert FCPS and delete / destroy what she was not entitled to. She was immoral, sneaky, and quite frankly shows her to be not a good person. SHame on her.

lol. Accusing someone of being obtuse and then proceeding to say what fcps did isn’t relevant.

And that’s the definition of….irony!

It's not relevant. They made a separate mistake. SHE then made her own. FCPS didn't force her to not notify them, return the information, or destroy it. SHE did that on her own.

You're not ironic at all. You're an idiot.

Reading your argument and then reading you calling me an idiot. Isn’t it ironic…

[Anonymous]

Virginia Law (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title18.2/chapter5/article7.1/)

§ 18.2-152.5. Computer invasion of privacy; penalties.
A. A person is guilty of the crime of computer invasion of privacy when he uses a computer or computer network and intentionally examines without authority any employment, salary, credit or any other financial or identifying information, as defined in clauses (iii) through (xiii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, relating to any other person. "Examination" under this section requires the offender to review the information relating to any other person after the time at which the offender knows or should know that he is without authority to view the information displayed.

B. The crime of computer invasion of privacy shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. Any person who violates this section after having been previously convicted of a violation of this section or any substantially similar laws of any other state or of the United States is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

D. Any person who violates this section and sells or distributes such information to another is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

E. Any person who violates this section and uses such information in the commission of another crime is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

[Anonymous]

Arent we legally entitled to see what documents about our child were disclosed?