| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A judge has (almost) silently ordered the California Department of Education to release critical student information (name, address, SSN, disciplinary and other school history) to a nonprofit, which then (apparently) plans to maintain its own database of this information. The only way to ensure your child's information is not released is to file an objection before April 1.
And, ironically, link to a different nonprofit's take on the whole thing.
Personally, working for a major software company, I feel that no matter what the nonprofit's intents, one more database is one more vector of attack for identity theft, and I do not need a nonprofit fighting my battles for me, so I've filed objections for both my kids.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, TL. How do you DO that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, TL. How do you DO that?
Uh... I read stuff, and then, if I like it, I move the mouse over the "+" sign and click? I dunno! :D
OK, TL. How do you DO that?Uh... I read stuff, and then, if I like it, I move the mouse over the "+" sign and click? I dunno! :D
Important caveat being that I like and generally agree with what you've said. For the record. (As I don't particularly like the idea of any group collecting that kind of personal information, especially from my kids.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not live in California, but I cannot believe that any school corporation would agree to that. If I did not directly give my child's information to a Third party company, then I obviously would not want them to have it! You can bet that my child would not be going to any school that participated in that program! That's one of the more ridiculous things I have read in a long time. Yet another reason to never move out to there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, working for a major software company, I feel that no matter what the nonprofit's intents, one more database is one more vector of attack for identity theft, and I do not need a nonprofit fighting my battles for me, so I've filed objections for both my kids.
I don't understand how the judge's order is legal or where the nonprofit ever got a case, but at the same time this brings up a thought. I don't doubt that you a good parent who can fight this battle better yourself. At the same time, however, my mother was the one hip deep in battles with the school over my difficulties with autism, and she was a problem much more than she was a solution. Makes me wary of both sides in battles between the school and parental rights. No doubt you know best, but a lot of heavily involved parents actually don't, my mother included. The problem is, who draws that line?
Also, should I file an objection? This:
The nonprofit said it needs the information to see if California schools are violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other related laws. The database it will have access to includes all information on children, kindergarten through high school, who are attending or have attended a California school at any time since Jan. 1, 2008.
Means my data is included. I graduated high school in San Jose in 2009.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not live in California, but I cannot believe that any school corporation would agree to that. If I did not directly give my child's information to a Third party company, then I obviously would not want them to have it! You can bet that my child would not be going to any school that participated in that program! That's one of the more ridiculous things I have ever read in a long time. Yet another reason to never move out to there...
For the record, the California Department of Education opposed this whole thing. The nonprofit wanted the data, California said no way, so the nonprofit went to court, and the court ordered California to release the data. So I wouldn't blame the schools or the state, because it's not their fault. Blame the nonprofit and the judge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rosita, if you do not already participate in an Identity Theft Protection program, I would highly recommend you start now. I would not trust some group of "concerned parents" with keeping my, or my loved ones, sensitive information safe. Not even the Department of Defense can protect from data breaches (I should know, my personal information was part of the massive DoD security breach recently), so what good do these people think a "consultant" can do? Just ridiculous...
I do not live in California, but I cannot believe that any school corporation would agree to that. If I did not directly give my child's information to a Third party company, then I obviously would not want them to have it! You can bet that my child would not be going to any school that participated in that program! That's one of the more ridiculous things I have ever read in a long time. Yet another reason to never move out to there...For the record, the California Department of Education opposed this whole thing. The nonprofit wanted the data, California said no way, so the nonprofit went to court, and the court ordered California to release the data. So I wouldn't blame the schools or the state, because it's not their fault. Blame the nonprofit and the judge.
Touche. Even so, the fact that a judge would ever even consider that lawsuit is... mind-boggling. The really terrifying part about this situation is that it is now creating precedence for other individuals all around the country to attempt the same thing.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That, and they're not actually giving the data to the nonprofit, they're giving the data to a court appointed analyst. Fewer than 10 people will have access to it, and once they perform the analysis that the nonprofit wants, they'll return or destroy the database.
The nonprofit says they tried to get the school district to do the analysis in-house, without sharing private student data, but the district shot them down.
From USA Today:
"According to English, her group came up with multiple scenarios in which the department could have given it percentages and statistics without it ever seeing individual student data. "We even said, 'You sit in front of your computer terminal and we'll query you and you give us the results.'"
The department refused.
"Our position has been clear, we are fighting and will continue to protect student privacy rights," Tira said."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/16/morgan-hill-kimberly-mue ller-california-public-schools-information-disabled-release-10-million/8047 2900/
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, about that: Once data has been spread, it has spread. Idiot provisions like "Fewer than 10 people will have access to it, and once they perform the analysis (...) they'll return or destroy the database" are completely meaningless. But it looks good when people say these things. After all, even if you destroy that database, how can you be sure there isn't a copy somewhere, making the rounds? You can't. You NEVER can.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right of course, no security measure is 100% effective, but that doesn't make them dumb or meaningless. The login system this site uses isn't foolproof, but I bet you'd hesitate to share your password with us :)
My point wasn't that this data will be perfectly safe. My point was that the original article made it sound like they were just handing out sensitive student information to whoever asked for it, all willy-nilly. That's not the case. They are being as careful as they can be while still giving the nonprofit the information it has a right to--information which the school district had multiple opportunities to provide without making copies of it's student database.
Of course, the data is already on the school district computers, so we have no way of knowing if there's already a copy making the rounds somewhere, right? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, you are arguing that the data exists at all somewhere, so making a copy of it in another place doesn't make things worse?
Yeah.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Near as I can tell from the stories the non-profit didn't just "want the data" and sued to get it, but was suing the Calif. Dept. of Ed alleging they had violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act "by failing to monitor, investigate, provide services to, and enforce the rights of children with disabilities". The data was sought as part of discovery for the suit.
If it's gotten that far, there are likely some grounds known already, the full data really could be needed to make the case. It does seem like it would be possible to scrub the data to remove SSNs and maybe other personal identification info. OTOH, do you trust the defendant in a suit to scrub the data without trying to sanitize anything that looks bad for them?
It's easy to look at this and jump to the "Dept of Ed is trying to protect students privacy" angle, but it's just as easy to see "Dept of Ed is trying to cover its ass and hide incriminating evidence."
While your argument is logically sound, it is technically inaccurate.
It would be trivial for the DoE to perform a data dump that excluded critical identifying information (name, address, phone number, SSN) and hand the data dump to the nonprofit. The nonprofit would be able to perform the data analysis itself, without any critical information ever seeing the light of day. And without that identifying information, I would have no issue with the nonprofit getting mine.
A DBA from the nonprofit watches the DBA from the DoE perform the dump, wanders off the with the extract, done. I have to do exactly such extracts at work on a fairly regular basis, and they really are trivial to implement. It's usually a single select() statement in a data dump, but I'm sure the DoE has some convoluted database where it would take a wee bit more work, but not a ton.
There was never any reason to provide additional access to the original database, nor would any data cleansing have been necessary.
Due to the sensitivity of the information being accessed, now data cleaning IS occurring because troublemakers like me are filing objections to having their data accessed.
So by providing full access, the judge actually made matters worse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with Sissyl. I am not stating that this group has nefarious plans for the data they are collecting, I'm sure it is quite the opposite. The issue I have is the broad scope of the data they are collecting. Why is a child's SSN and other "sensitive" data a requirement for their research? My argument; its not. The more hands in a jar the more likely the jar will tip and the contents inside will be spread.
This is even more of a danger for juveniles, because if their identities are stolen, the likelihood is that it will not be noticed for several years. The amount of damage someone can do over a few months is astounding, let alone over possibly 10 years.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That the school is using the students Social Security Numbers at all seems wrong to me.
SSN's are a REALLY bad way to keep track of anything but well, social security. I just can't think of a single reason why the school would keep those numbers at all.
Also, when it comes to technology and security, many institutions and business are horribly protected. The only way to keep your data secure, is to keep it out of the hands of places like this (which is basically impossible).
"Section 7 of the Privacy Act (found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a note) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.” Sec. 7(a)(1)."
“Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.” Sec. 7(b)."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically you're right, but according to the USA Today story Benchak referenced, something like your scenario is what the non-profit wanted and what the Dept of Ed has been refusing.
I was wrong in that I thought there might be reasons they needed the whole database, but with the later information, it's clear they didn't even want the whole database. This still looks to me like the Dept of Ed stonewalling, using children's privacy as a cover.The judge may have made things worse with this order, but only because the reasonable approach hadn't been getting anywhere for years.
I was going to edit, but you're awake too early on a Sunday. :-P
I realized that the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) table needs a primary key (unique identifier), and, knowing government contractors, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that they used Social Security Number as that identifier in violation of every best practice known to man. And since you can't do a (functioning) database extract without the primary key...
To me, that seems like the "most likely scenario": The DoE used SSN as the primary key in the PII table. So any usable extract includes SSNs. So they couldn't give the nonprofit the "clean" information they wanted. But, being bureaucrats, and resenting being sued, instead of admitting that they were idiots with bad contractors they played the "privacy" card. Over, and over, and over again.
As a former professor, I've seen it WAAAAAAAY too often: The administration's answer to all requests is just plain, "No," without any nefarious reason, then when pushed they come up with reasons they can't comply, until it finally ends up in an idiotic lawsuit like the one we're seeing.
So yeah, I think the DoE is at fault here, but the end result is still that the parents are the ones suffering: A non-publicized data breach is always a bad thing.
And I think Sissyl put it beautifully. It doesn't matter what you think you're doing to protect the data, it's going to get out there. I've never met a contractor who didn't download sensitive data to his or her laptop to work on at home. And laptops get stolen...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff: It never was completely safe. Nobody claimed that. But the only thing you can know with certainty is that if you hand out a copy of the data, it is even less safe than before.
Benchak: Smiley face doesn't change the fact that you made an argument that many will assume is useful. If you made it tongue-in-cheek, good for you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that everyone here is concentrating on the wrong problem. This database should not even exist to start with. The local schools or maybe (very unlikely though) the local school districts need a database of all their students. The statewide education system does not deal with individual students and should not ever have a list of all of them.
Some of you may remember that there was an issue with the Common Core than as originally implemented there was supposed to be a national database of all students. Enough people screamed that they got rid of that portion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff: It never was completely safe. Nobody claimed that. But the only thing you can know with certainty is that if you hand out a copy of the data, it is even less safe than before.And that's it? That's all that matters? Any increase in the risk of a data breach, however marginal and whatever precautions are taken, trumps the potential value of evidence of wrongdoing?
It doesn't matter that they initially sought solutions that would only get summaries, not identifiable data, but the Dept refused to cooperate?
No. It's that, without my knowledge or consent, critically-important personally identifiable information about my children is being released to a non-governmental third party, without that information being relevant to the case.
The judge should have ordered a simple, "OK, DBAs from the two parties work together to produce a data dump that does not contain the PII."
It would be a reasonable first step after the DoE said it couldn't/wouldn't do it, and I saw no indication that this was even suggested, much less tried.
Instead, the judge took the lazy way out (as usual) and said, "Nobody cares about the privacy of these people. Just release the information."
It's the "modern" way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having worked in the public school system for 8 years, and the software industry for 16+, I will say that, given the choice between Lunch Lady Doris having access to my information, and a security "expert", I would choose Lunch Lady Doris. Every. Single. Time.
Why?
Because in my experience, those working in offices are repeatedly told, "If this information gets out, you'll be fired with cause and everyone will know you blew it."
Secretaries, receptionists, nurses, and so forth are typically amazing at guarding the information they have access to. They lock the computers whenever they step away. They don't surf the web from the patient computers. They don't check their private e-mails. They know that if they make a mistake, their careers are over, and they don't understand the tech, so they are very, very, VERY careful.
Security "experts" and contractors are the exact opposite, in my experience. They are "too smart" to make mistakes. They download sensitive information to their (insecured) laptops, and leave the laptops lying around in the trunk of their cars. Whenever you hear about a mass data breach, it's not Joe Office worker that caused it. It's a contractor running around with an unencrypted CD that they were never supposed to create, or an IT admin who left a back door in to the system so he/she could access it from home.
I am constantly appalled at the lack of concern for security shown by "experts". I am constantly impressed by those who work with the data day-to-day without understanding the underlying system.
This experience in nearly 25 years of working in the associated industries leads me to be extremely resentful when an "expert" is allowed access to my data...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff: It never was completely safe. Nobody claimed that. But the only thing you can know with certainty is that if you hand out a copy of the data, it is even less safe than before.And that's it? That's all that matters? Any increase in the risk of a data breach, however marginal and whatever precautions are taken, trumps the potential value of evidence of wrongdoing?
It doesn't matter that they initially sought solutions that would only get summaries, not identifiable data, but the Dept refused to cooperate?No. It's that, without my knowledge or consent, critically-important personally identifiable information about my children is being released to a non-governmental third party, without that information being relevant to the case.
I'm afraid that you have the wrong end of the stick here.
The plaintiffs asked explicitly for the information relevant to an alleged violation of law. (They were able to establish to the satisfaction of the court that there was, in fact, enough evidence available to justify discovery, and so the plaintiffs are entitled to to this information as a matter of right.)
The defendants claimed they were unable to supply that information, because it would be too burdensome to strip out the irrelevant information.
The judge, then, said, "Okay, then, you don't need to strip out the irrelevant information. Deliver everything and it becomes the Special Master's problem."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That the school is using the students Social Security Numbers at all seems wrong to me.
SSN's are a REALLY bad way to keep track of anything but well, social security. I just can't think of a single reason why the school would keep those numbers at all.
that's strange- my ssn was the first number I had to remember for school that wasn't a phone number (or address) going back to elementary school.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's strange- my ssn was the first number I had to remember for school that wasn't a phone number (or address) going back to elementary school.That the school is using the students Social Security Numbers at all seems wrong to me.
SSN's are a REALLY bad way to keep track of anything but well, social security. I just can't think of a single reason why the school would keep those numbers at all.
In part because of the increasing awareness of security threats and knowledge of the risks of identity theft, "best practices" with respect to SSNs have changed radically in the past several years. (For example, Louisiana passed a law relatively recently that prohibits schools and university from using SSNs as student ID numbers, but this was still only 2011. Nationally, the practice remains widespread -- for example, Texas prohibits PRINTING SSNs on student ID cards, but one can still use them as internal identifiers.) So I'm not surprised that your experience was different from current expectations. But it's also not reasonable to criticize agencies for failure (in 1990) to follow best practices established in 2011.
ETA: I was wrong about the Louisiana law. It prohibits use of SSNs as employee numbers for teachers and school employees, but it's silent on the use of SSNs for students. Which just goes to show how slowly practices are changing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff: It never was completely safe. Nobody claimed that. But the only thing you can know with certainty is that if you hand out a copy of the data, it is even less safe than before.And that's it? That's all that matters? Any increase in the risk of a data breach, however marginal and whatever precautions are taken, trumps the potential value of evidence of wrongdoing?
It doesn't matter that they initially sought solutions that would only get summaries, not identifiable data, but the Dept refused to cooperate?No. It's that, without my knowledge or consent, critically-important personally identifiable information about my children is being released to a non-governmental third party, without that information being relevant to the case.
I'm afraid that you have the wrong end of the stick here.
The plaintiffs asked explicitly for the information relevant to an alleged violation of law. (They were able to establish to the satisfaction of the court that there was, in fact, enough evidence available to justify discovery, and so the plaintiffs are entitled to to this information as a matter of right.)
The defendants claimed they were unable to supply that information, because it would be too burdensome to strip out the irrelevant information.
The judge, then, said, "Okay, then, you don't need to strip out the irrelevant information. Deliver everything and it becomes the Special Master's problem."
I do understand that. But, being in the industry, it's why I'm resentful of it.
The judge's order should have been, "OK, then, you don't need to strip out the irrelevant information. Allow the plaintiff's experts full monitored on-site access to your database and let them take a crack at it, with full permission to take any non-PII data off-site."
It may seem like a subtle difference, but as I said, I work in the industry, and any technically-savvy consultant the court had asked could have provided this solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And just so's everyone knows, I have standing in this case: I have a son with a learning disability that has been recognized by the school district, and I feel the school district has been grossly inadequate in addressing that disability.
And yet the first peep I heard about this case was when my privacy nut friend sent me the NBC link.
So yes, I also get suspicious/resentful when an entity that claims to be representing me and perfectly capable of protecting my data can't even figure out how to contact me when they're filing a lawsuit on my behalf...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The nonprofit should not be given access to any information that it cannot demonstrate a clear and compelling need to have. SSNs are at the top of this list, I think.
Both thejeff and Orfamay are correct; the nonprofit said, "We need your stripped data," and the DoE said, "Duh, our DBAs are too stupid to do that."
So I fully agree with granting the plaintiff access. It's the nature of the access with which I disagree. "Monitored on-site access" prevents contractors or other "experts" from taking home copies of the data "because I have better tools at home". It's the potential transportation of the critical data I'm worried about.
A quick example and then I have to get to work for the day: We have a massive internal corporate network with terabytes of sensitive information. If a lawsuit were filed, a plaintiff could either:
(a) Come to one of our offices and access that already-secured location, or
(b) Ask the IT department to provide external access to our sensitive internal network.
Option (a) is obviously the more-secure option. But because it's a PITA for the plaintiff to have to go on-site, it's almost always option (b) that occurs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A quick example and then I have to get to work for the day: We have a massive internal corporate network with terabytes of sensitive information. If a lawsuit were filed, a plaintiff could either:
(a) Come to one of our offices and access that already-secured location, or
(b) Ask the IT department to provide external access to our sensitive internal network.Option (a) is obviously the more-secure option.
Yes, but what you're missing is that the plaintiff asked for option (a) and the defendant was the party that refused it. With the defendant itself taking option (a) off the table, the judge ordered option (b). And in this case, the order is appropriate.
As the thejeff pointed out, the DoE can't simply shut the case down by refusing to cooperate in discovery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except if the judge had told them to go with option (a), they wouldn't have gotten out of it, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The nonprofit should not be given access to any information that it cannot demonstrate a clear and compelling need to have.
This is exactly wrong. Both parties in a lawsuit are entitled to any information they can demonstrate a clear and compelling need to have. That's what the word "need" means, basically.
If it turns out that irrelevant and relevant information are intermixed in a way that would be unduly burdensome to separate, the parties are still entitled to the information that they need, which mean they get the irrelevant information, too.
As far as I can tell (largely from reading the actual court documents), the plaintiffs have done everything correctly and in accord with the rules. The defendants are being obstreperous and uncooperative, but that doesn't excuse them from following the rules.
But, basically, we're looking at a situation where I'm suing because you hit my car, and a chemical analysis of the paint left on your quarter-panel will prove a match. The paint itself is clearly relevant, and the judge has ordered you to provide the quarter-panel to an appropriate forensic expert.
You've refused, on the grounds that it's unreasonable to expect you to take the quarter panel off your car.
My counter-offer is that the expert can come to your house and do his analysis there.
You've refused, on the grounds that it's unreasonable to pay the travel-and-tool costs of the expert to get to your house.
The judge at this point has two choices -- either overrule one of your refusals, or demand that you present the entire car, complete with quarter panel. But I am entitled by law to an analysis of the paint.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except if the judge had told them to go with option (a), they wouldn't have gotten out of it, right?
In the long run, no, the DoE would still need to provide the information. In the short run, it would have set off another flurry of appeals and flood of documents.
There's also, given the defendant's behavior in this case, a better-than-chance likelihood that the defendant would refuse to comply with option (a) by citing some bogus reason that they can't provide access to the specific information in question. Or at least, that's my read on the situation. If this happened -- "all right, I need to know how many students are in this particular district"//"I'm sorry, but that's privileged information" -- the case would simply be back in the judge's lap in a week.
The judge is entitled to her own read, and she's allowed to use her best judgment about the appropriate decisions. She wants to issue a decision that forestalls further obstruction by either party,... and this is a pretty effective way to do it, frankly. Were I the judge, I'd be looking at contempt citations pretty soon as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They might have objected to the on-site version as too much of a burden as well.
Actually, they (the Defendants) are on record as objecting to "here are the SQL queries we want you to run." (Ruling of Jan 26, 1016).
It doesn't get much more defendant-friendly than that. I think the fact that the defendants were unable/unwilling to cooperate with that is part of the reason they've been ordered to produce the lot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The judge should have ordered a simple, "OK, DBAs from the two parties work together to produce a data dump that does not contain the PII."
Actually, that's what the judge did order, way back in 2014. That's what the DoE is refusing to comply with (and has been for more than a year). (See ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 01/26/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's 129 Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as detailed in order. Emphasis mine.)
• Defendant will produce redacted student data “in a manner to allow plaintiffs to track students . . . wherever they are identified throughout defendant’s electronic databases.” Defendant will use pseudonyms to achieve this.• Defendant will produce documents in the format they are originally stored in defendant’s databases.
• Plaintiffs will provide defendant with “sample lists of search terms for use in retrieving information,” and later (after sampling the results), with a “complete list of search terms.”
As I said, you have the wrong end of the stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I should clarify myself a bit. I wasn't talking about the lawsuit in particular, I meant nonprofits in general having access to the private and sensitive information of children. I am uncertain, for example, why any nonprofit would need the Social Security Numbers of children (although I'm willing to admit there might be a reason).The nonprofit should not be given access to any information that it cannot demonstrate a clear and compelling need to have.This is exactly wrong. Both parties in a lawsuit are entitled to any information they can demonstrate a clear and compelling need to have. That's what the word "need" means, basically.
The MHCPA (the nonprofit) doesn't need the Social Security Numbers of children and has admitted as such. This was actually settled in 2014. It does, however, need the ability "to track students, to the maximum extent feasible, wherever they are identified through defendant's electronic databases" -- and the Department of Education not only agreed to that, but Judge Mueller formalized that as a legal requirement in an order of 12/16/2014 (more than a year ago, note).
So at that point, the ball is/was in the DoE's court. If they had, as is now considered best practices, separate student identification numbers that are distinct from the SSNs, they could simply have stripped the SSNs out of the database and produced it.
If they didn't follow best practices, they've still had more than a year to produce a redacted database that substitutes random strings for SSNs in order to preserve student privacy.
That they're unable or unwilling to do that redaction does not relieve them of the obligation to produce the information that they were ordered to produce. The DoE is required to produce functional databases. Whether those databases contain SSNs or not is a matter that it has had more than a year to address. Absent any sign of a good-faith attempt to address this question, there's little that the MHCPA could do except plead for an order to compel.
If the nonprofit can produce a clear and compelling need to have certain information - including a way to access said information without putting it at risk - then in general, I think they should be permitted to have access it to the extent permitted by law.
Oddly enough, the law agrees, and has agreed that the nonprofit has met this burden. But the state can't use the argument of risk as a way to avoid allowing access.
At this point, I think there are three factors involved. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part, but I think we're dealing with a normal case of bureaucratic intrangience (the California Department of Education is about to learn a lesson in the power of Federal courts), and bureaucratic inefficiency (they have a very bad database design that they don't want to make public). But given the scale of this fight, I think they have looked at the data themselves and they know they're in the wrong -- I think there's a "smoking gun" in the data that will lose them the case very quickly.
I hope I'm wrong. But whether I'm wrong about the ultimate outcome or not, I don't see any reason to complain about the conduct of the nonprofit. They've identified a real problem, produced enough evidence to convince two different Federal judges (a magistrate judge and a district judge) to take it seriously, and have followed all the rules in getting access to the data that will resolve the dispute.
What else would you (or anyone else) have the Morgan Hill Concerned Parent Association do differently?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be very clear: I am 100% in agreement with Orfamay, and glad he(?) joined the discussion, because I find his legal insights unparalleled on such threads.
Yes, it is entirely the DoE's fault. Yes, they are obviously hiding something.
However, my preference still would have been for the judge to start throwing DoE employees in jail for contempt, rather than an easier-but-higher-risk solution of, "Fine, we'll let them go in and get it themselves."
I see jailing people for contempt used far too sparingly. Put a DBA in prison for a week. Your data will appear...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of them, then.
