Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The without authority is what kills this argument. She was handed the information. If this would have held up, they would have criminally charged her 2 years ago the last time this happened.

[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.

+1

This thread is about her actions, not FCPS. She wronged thousands of parents by her own actions.

[Anonymous]

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

My guess is fcps doesn’t know what they gave her. If you call the phone number, they point you back to the letter. We’ll probably never know the full extent of what they handed her.

[Anonymous]

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

How do we find this out?

We are in a different school pyramid. I have had three kids with IEPs, two for speech and one for serious mental health issues. The dc with the serious problems had info leaked but not the other two. It makes me think there was some incredible sensitive document listing all the kids in MH crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

My guess is fcps doesn’t know what they gave her. If you call the phone number, they point you back to the letter. We’ll probably never know the full extent of what they handed her.

If someone leaks your data, they are legally required to tell you what was given away. Are schools exempt from that?

[Anonymous]

Its incredibly offensive to me that they outsourced phone calls on this to a temp agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The without authority is what kills this argument. She was handed the information. If this would have held up, they would have criminally charged her 2 years ago the last time this happened.

She did not have authority. FCPS couldn’t give her authorization, even inadvertently, to have those records because the parents never granted her access to them.

"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.

She knew she didn’t have the authority to review the files. And yet she proceeded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

My guess is fcps doesn’t know what they gave her. If you call the phone number, they point you back to the letter. We’ll probably never know the full extent of what they handed her.

If someone leaks your data, they are legally required to tell you what was given away. Are schools exempt from that?

Oh I think they have a legal obligation. But if they go to a judge, and say look, we should know what we gave her, but we don’t. As the saying goes, you can’t get blood from a turnip.

I think if they knew, the 800# could provide some direction or the letter would allude to us being notified. I think what they know is what they’re seeing on her website. Perhaps they can retrace their steps somewhat, but the full extent may never be known.

[Anonymous]

Outsourced to Experian who were given canned responses to read.

No contact info for any fcps staff who are handling the issue. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

It seems like any IT person could have worked backward from what the staffer had access to that day to deduce what could have beeen downloaded.

[Anonymous]

They should at least have the courtesy to have fcps staff speaking to parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like any IT person could have worked backward from what the staffer had access to that day to deduce what could have beeen downloaded.

There may have been log files for queries, etc. Doubt they are still retained now though.

[Anonymous]

She could have sent the thumb drive back so they know what she took.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She could have sent the thumb drive back so they know what she took.

Seriously, i am shocked another SN parent would have no empathy. She must not have kids with serious problems.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone tried contacting Oetinger and asking what she has on your kid?