According to his initial trial, his room was exposed to other Cleveland State University (CSU) students who took the test and to the invigilator, who recorded a scan of it for signs of possible fraud. In painting his room, Ogletree recalled in a statement that he did not have access to a storage room where he could have stored certain things for privacy. Prescription drugs lay on his bedside table; Important and confidential tax documents lie face down on a pile on his desk. Ogletree said he feared people would see through the thin paper, and then, as he waved the laptop, his arm stroked the tax papers, revealing personal information. Meanwhile, there has been much opposition to remote monitoring, including other lawsuits and petition campaigns that have garnered tens of thousands of signatures. Nevertheless, more and more universities seem to be acquiring licenses for the software and leaving it to individual professors to decide if they want to use the tool. Meanwhile, several electronic surveillance lawsuits have been filed against Illinois universities, including Northwestern and DePaul. They allege violations of the same biometric privacy law that has led to huge class-action lawsuits against companies like Facebook and Google Photos (none have admitted wrongdoing). The 2008 law protects the biometric data of Illinois residents and the physical characteristics of individuals by prohibiting private companies and institutions from collecting and storing the data without individuals` consent. The law also allows residents to sue for violations. The court recognized that the school had a legitimate interest in preventing fraud, but concluded that the surveillance analysis as a whole was so intrusive and inappropriate that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The result warms my libertarian heart. But even those who disagree with the court`s constitutional conclusion have reason to worry about software oversight.
While schools quickly transitioned to online learning, many were unable to assess the privacy impact of online surveillance and the risks prior to implementation. Now that the pressures of this transition have eased and schools have gained an understanding of their new school delivery model, the time has come to re-examine the privacy impact and risks of online surveillance and make adjustments. This newsletter contains tips on privacy and risk management for schools that may be helpful. Different student populations and different forms of assessment are associated with different levels of risk. In addition, the risk of identity fraud (which serves as a strong justification for online surveillance) may differ from the risk of other forms of dishonesty. In terms of risk impact, the effects of dishonesty may be tolerable for reviews that represent only a small part of an overall score. The «room scans» of electronic surveillance are an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment search, according to an Ohio federal judge who ruled in favor of the Cleveland State University student who filed the privacy lawsuit. Schools may also consider whether students should be allowed to opt out of using the online monitoring tool. This type of opt-out mechanism should be designed so that it does not become too easy to unsubscribe, while giving students a reasonable opportunity to opt out in certain circumstances.
Although such a mechanism is not easy to conceive, it would have many advantages from a data protection point of view. In December 2020, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint against five popular surveillance services, including Honorlock, for their «invasive» and «deceptive» data collection practices. Fight for the Future, a nonprofit that created the BanEproctoring.com website, called the decision a «big win.» That`s the verdict of a federal judge in Ohio this week, who found that the practice — a feature of remote monitoring services that has prevailed during the pandemic — may constitute an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. In an email to instructors, ADA coordinator Allison Kushner and vice provost Kevin Pitts wrote that faculty who continue to use Proctorio through the summer of 2021 «should welcome students who raise accessibility issues» and that the campus is «exploring longer-term remote monitoring options.» Schools have implemented online monitoring with remarkable agility and under considerable time pressure. As the pandemic enters its second year, it may be wise for them to think more carefully about the privacy and risk implications of this important change. Software designed to prevent university students from cheating on their home exams during the Covid-19 pandemic is undergoing its first legal test under European data protection law. Critics of electronic surveillance say the problems are not limited to privacy issues. Students of color reported problems with facial recognition software when they struggled to register for exams. Others worry that facial tracking programs could wrongly label a student with tics, and others worry about access to reliable internet service.
«We should focus on education, not surveillance,» Geoghegan says. He considers resistance to schools and surveillance societies to be appropriate. «Students should not have to exchange too large a set of data [as the EPIC complaint claims] to receive or gain an education.» «We take these concerns seriously,» the UIUC email reads, citing student complaints about «accessibility, privacy, data security and fairness» as factors in its decision.