Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anyone wanting to sue Callie Oettinger please
Contact me at 571-293-0276.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I received a letter from FCPS regarding the information leak of only one of my kids, whom as far as I know was never in any special services and never in trouble. I now want to reach out to FCPS to know what they documented about my child that was leaked and if this information they documented could potentially affect college applications.

All the contractor is telling people is that they can send an email to the "[e-mail]" inbox to ask.
Fcps seems to be trying to avoid any specifics---but I agree that they must
Know what they gave the parent because how else would they know what families to contact?

This is my thought. If FCPS wasn’t sure about info, would have needed to send out to 180,000 families. They sent to 35,000 so they had to have a process to identify the names so they now should be able to go back and tell parents where their names were.

Agree. They must have cross-checked the list of documents Callie said they gave her which was pretty specific against what the FCPS staffer who gave her the data has access to. They know what she has, they just don't want to get into the weeds and details of showing each family a redacted version of what about their child was given away. Well too bad, so sad, we are entitled to know that. Its the very least they can do.
I don't want to sue anyone, I just want to know what details about my child was shared with the world. Like other posters, he had serious mental health challenges and a psychiatric hospitalization, and a stint at a day school. There does seem to be a very specific and sensitive document that was released compiling data of kids with serious MH issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WTH does this even mean.? How would the "know what she took."? Memaw here doesn't seem to understand things.

You seem confused. If they are claiming they don't know what data she has, if she gave the thumb drive back they would be able to see what documents they gave her.

I'm not confused but FCPS clearly is. I can not imagine how they would not know what they gave her. How can that be true. They gave her documents and they kept no records on what they gave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WTH does this even mean.? How would the "know what she took."? Memaw here doesn't seem to understand things.

You seem confused. If they are claiming they don't know what data she has, if she gave the thumb drive back they would be able to see what documents they gave her.

I'm not confused but FCPS clearly is. I can not imagine how they would not know what they gave her. How can that be true. They gave her documents and they kept no records on what they gave?

They were electronic files. Unless they looked at the logs (if they even capture that info in the logs) they may not realize what report(s)/documents were given to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As parents, we did not authorize Callie Oettinger to give our child's information to Timothy Sandefur.

You don’t get that right. You lost control of the data when you gave it to fcps. See “pentagon papers”.

No, they cannot give out personal info without parental consent. FCPS didn’t have the authorization to share. She has the data without the proper authorization. AND she distributed it.

"proper authorization"? There is no such thing in this case. FCPS handed the data to her.

Go ahead. Hire a lawyer. Spend your money. See where it gets you.

Sure there is. Parents are the owners of the info and they give schools authorization to share records with others. FCPS/Callie didn’t have that authorization.

§ 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.


And she distributed it to someone else:
D. Any person who violates this section and sells or distributes such information to another is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Louder this time. YOU DON’T OWN THE INFO.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title22.1/chapter14/article5/

Article 5. Pupil Records.
§ 22.1-287. Limitations on access to records.
A. No teacher, principal or employee of any public school nor any school board member shall permit access to any records concerning any particular pupil enrolled in the school in any class to any person except under judicial process unless the person is one of the following:

1. Either parent of such pupil or such pupil; provided that a school board may require that such pupil, if he be less than 18 years of age, as a condition precedent to access to such records, furnish written consent of his or her parent for such access;

FERPA:
schools are prohibited from disclosing personally identifiable information (PII) from a student’s
education records unless the parent or eligible student provides prior written consent

FCPS did not have PWC to release the records. She was not authorized to “examine” the records.

All of that applies to the school, not the individual. Go ahead. Give a lawyer some money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WTH does this even mean.? How would the "know what she took."? Memaw here doesn't seem to understand things.

You seem confused. If they are claiming they don't know what data she has, if she gave the thumb drive back they would be able to see what documents they gave her.

I'm not confused but FCPS clearly is. I can not imagine how they would not know what they gave her. How can that be true. They gave her documents and they kept no records on what they gave?

They were electronic files. Unless they looked at the logs (if they even capture that info in the logs) they may not realize what report(s)/documents were given to her.

Then how did they determine which families to send the FERPA letter to? They know what they gave her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:§ 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.

...

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

You do not understand what any of this. The individual did not need "authority" to look at what FCPS sent. The individual had no obligation to you. I see you think you are a clever legal mind. Give a lawyer some money today. Go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I received a letter from FCPS regarding the information leak of only one of my kids, whom as far as I know was never in any special services and never in trouble. I now want to reach out to FCPS to know what they documented about my child that was leaked and if this information they documented could potentially affect college applications.

All the contractor is telling people is that they can send an email to the "[e-mail]" inbox to ask.
Fcps seems to be trying to avoid any specifics---but I agree that they must
Know what they gave the parent because how else would they know what families to contact?

This is my thought. If FCPS wasn’t sure about info, would have needed to send out to 180,000 families. They sent to 35,000 so they had to have a process to identify the names so they now should be able to go back and tell parents where their names were.

Agree. They must have cross-checked the list of documents Callie said they gave her which was pretty specific against what the FCPS staffer who gave her the data has access to. They know what she has, they just don't want to get into the weeds and details of showing each family a redacted version of what about their child was given away. Well too bad, so sad, we are entitled to know that. Its the very least they can do.
I don't want to sue anyone, I just want to know what details about my child was shared with the world. Like other posters, he had serious mental health challenges and a psychiatric hospitalization, and a stint at a day school. There does seem to be a very specific and sensitive document that was released compiling data of kids with serious MH issues.

Agree this is the most likely scenario (I doubt they are logging who accesses documents and on what time/day although going forward they should be doing that.)

Why did this random FCPS staffer have access to all these troves of information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WTH does this even mean.? How would the "know what she took."? Memaw here doesn't seem to understand things.

You seem confused. If they are claiming they don't know what data she has, if she gave the thumb drive back they would be able to see what documents they gave her.

I'm not confused but FCPS clearly is. I can not imagine how they would not know what they gave her. How can that be true. They gave her documents and they kept no records on what they gave?

They were electronic files. Unless they looked at the logs (if they even capture that info in the logs) they may not realize what report(s)/documents were given to her.

What does that matter. It is olympic level incompetence for them not to log or document what they give out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WTH does this even mean.? How would the "know what she took."? Memaw here doesn't seem to understand things.

You seem confused. If they are claiming they don't know what data she has, if she gave the thumb drive back they would be able to see what documents they gave her.

I'm not confused but FCPS clearly is. I can not imagine how they would not know what they gave her. How can that be true. They gave her documents and they kept no records on what they gave?

They were electronic files. Unless they looked at the logs (if they even capture that info in the logs) they may not realize what report(s)/documents were given to her.

What does that matter. It is olympic level incompetence for them not to log or document what they give out.

Yep. They didn't even realize they had given her all this until the journalist published the article.

[Anonymous]

Those who are arguing against a lawsuit against Callie are missing the point. Legal precedent can be made in such suits, regardless of what one judge previously decided. Whether or not I see a single dime, anyone who refuses to relinquish personal data of minors protected under FERPA and medical privacy laws that was disclosed in error, who then kept and shared that information without express parental consent and a signed release of information should be held accountable in the future.

If there is no other result except that Callie’s actions are deemed illegal and can never be repeated, that is good enough for me. This is not about money to me, and I have no doubt that many other parents feel similarly. This is about the privacy of my child whose sensitive data was breached, is being held by an unauthorized individual who is keeping my minor’s data with no accountability regarding the security and handling of that data. How do I know this data is being stored securely? How do I know whether my child’s medical has been shared in an identifiable manner? What actions have been taken to prevent a hacker from targeting this data and posting it on the dark web? This information could potentially live on the web forever or be shared unredacted with others, as it was apparently already shared in a unredacted form with the media. Who knows how this data could be linked to/used against my kid in the future, given the rampant ableism in our society.

Those who push their own agenda with no consideration for the privacy or wellbeing of other children who they claim to champion are not true advocates. This is a vendetta, not advocacy. Callie is as much a part of the problem as the failures that led to the breach in the first place, and those who are defending Callie’s actions are deluding themselves into the false narrative that two wrongs make a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who are arguing against a lawsuit against Callie are missing the point. Legal precedent can be made in such suits, regardless of what one judge previously decided. Whether or not I see a single dime, anyone who refuses to relinquish personal data of minors protected under FERPA and medical privacy laws that was disclosed in error, who then kept and shared that information without express parental consent and a signed release of information should be held accountable in the future.

If there is no other result except that Callie’s actions are deemed illegal and can never be repeated, that is good enough for me. This is not about money to me, and I have no doubt that many other parents feel similarly. This is about the privacy of my child whose sensitive data was breached, is being held by an unauthorized individual who is keeping my minor’s data with no accountability regarding the security and handling of that data. How do I know this data is being stored securely? How do I know whether my child’s medical has been shared in an identifiable manner? What actions have been taken to prevent a hacker from targeting this data and posting it on the dark web? This information could potentially live on the web forever or be shared unredacted with others, as it was apparently already shared in a unredacted form with the media. Who knows how this data could be linked to/used against my kid in the future, given the rampant ableism in our society.

Those who push their own agenda with no consideration for the privacy or wellbeing of other children who they claim to champion are not true advocates. This is a vendetta, not advocacy. Callie is as much a part of the problem as the failures that led to the breach in the first place, and those who are defending Callie’s actions are deluding themselves into the false narrative that two wrongs make a right.

I haven't defended her actions - I think it's pretty reprehensible that she has retained data she obviously shouldn't have received. I am just pointing out that no one has identified any legal avenue to hold her accountable, either for criminal or civil liability. That's all. But if you want to pay a lawyer to try to convince a judge to create new precedent, knock yourself out. I'm sure there will be plenty who will take your money.

[Anonymous]

You can sue, to me this is a class action.
IEP have medical information so she redistributesd medical information. Which is a criminal act on her part for using them. It’s against VA statues. #3 of the statue “3. No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.”

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who are arguing against a lawsuit against Callie are missing the point. Legal precedent can be made in such suits, regardless of what one judge previously decided. Whether or not I see a single dime, anyone who refuses to relinquish personal data of minors protected under FERPA and medical privacy laws that was disclosed in error, who then kept and shared that information without express parental consent and a signed release of information should be held accountable in the future.

If there is no other result except that Callie’s actions are deemed illegal and can never be repeated, that is good enough for me. This is not about money to me, and I have no doubt that many other parents feel similarly. This is about the privacy of my child whose sensitive data was breached, is being held by an unauthorized individual who is keeping my minor’s data with no accountability regarding the security and handling of that data. How do I know this data is being stored securely? How do I know whether my child’s medical has been shared in an identifiable manner? What actions have been taken to prevent a hacker from targeting this data and posting it on the dark web? This information could potentially live on the web forever or be shared unredacted with others, as it was apparently already shared in a unredacted form with the media. Who knows how this data could be linked to/used against my kid in the future, given the rampant ableism in our society.

Those who push their own agenda with no consideration for the privacy or wellbeing of other children who they claim to champion are not true advocates. This is a vendetta, not advocacy. Callie is as much a part of the problem as the failures that led to the breach in the first place, and those who are defending Callie’s actions are deluding themselves into the false narrative that two wrongs make a right.

This. I'm repulsed by Callie's actions. It's one thing to point out FCPS messing up, it's another to go ahead and start sharing our children's information. She most defiantly has an agenda and she's taking our children down with her. If legal action can't be taken against her, I pray karma comes full circle on her.

[Anonymous]

IEP contain medical information she violated § 32.1-127.1:03. Health records privacy. Section #3.

“3. No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.’

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:§ 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.

...

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

Why don't you go check out clauses (iii) through (xiii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3 and then circle back.

I'll save you the time - unless social security numbers were included in the data dump, there's no violation of the law. And even if they are, there's no way a court is going to hold anyone liable for reading something FCPS provided to them, even if FCPS provided it in error.