A federal judge last year found that the room scans performed by some remote proctoring software are unconstitutional. But some California colleges continue to use the software, which is designed to prevent cheating in online exams.|
ITZEL LUNA
CALMATTERS
Like many college students, Aaron Ogletree found himself attending classes from home in spring 2021. The Cleveland State sophom*ore took exams from his bedroom, the only place to find quiet and privacy in a home he shared with his mother and two siblings.
Less than two hours before he was scheduled to take one remote chemistry exam, according to court documents, Ogletree was shocked to receive an email informing him that he would be required to have his room remotely scanned by an online proctoring service. Remote proctoring software gained popularity during the pandemic as a way for universities to ensure that students sitting for exams miles from campus weren’t cheating. But Ogletree, who said he had confidential tax documents littered across his desk, viewed the room scan as an invasion of his privacy.
He complied, but later filed suit against Cleveland State, alleging the university violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In the first major legal test to the use of remote proctoring services in higher education, U.S. District Court Judge J. Philip Calabrese agreed in August that the room scanning was unconstitutional, stating that “Mr. Ogletree’s privacy interest in his home outweighs Cleveland State’s interests in scanning his room.”
Yet months later, as Cleveland State appeals the decision, some California schools are still using e-proctoring software that includes room scans.
San Diego State University, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal State San Marcos, Chico State University and the University of California at Berkeley all told the CalMatters College Journalism Network that at least some of their professors use such software. The state’s two public university systems lack a uniform policy on e-proctoring, so that’s likely not a complete list of campuses using the technology.
Students taking an exam with remote proctoring typically begin by showing an identification card, which the system uses to verify the student’s identity, and doing a webcam check. Certain e-proctoring services require students to show their room’s surroundings. They also often have to take a picture of the computer itself. During live proctoring, the instructor or a proctor can view the student while they take the exam via a video conference. At the same time, a lockdown browser monitors potential cheating on the computer itself.
Some systems, including Respondus, also offer a fully automated proctoring option, which allows students to record themselves taking the exam through their webcam. The instructor or a professional proctor is then able to view the recording afterwards, and the system flags any potential violations.
Privacy concerns
After spiking during the early days of the pandemic, the use of online proctoring services declined somewhat as faculty and students raised privacy concerns and universities began holding more in-person classes. But the technology has stuck around.
Respondus, one of the proctoring companies cited in the Cleveland State case, saw the number of professors using its online proctoring software decline by about 10% in 2022, but that still represents “significant growth” since before the pandemic, said COO Jodi Feeney.
“It’s clear that the pandemic accelerated adoption of e-proctoring, rather than it being a short-lived effect,” Feeney said.
Critics have called e-proctoring software innately racist, flawed, and an invasion of student privacy. The nonprofit digital rights advocacy organization Fight for the Future, which has led campaigns to ban e-proctoring, refers to the technology as “glorified spyware” and argues that it’s dangerous to give companies access to student’s personal information and biometric data such as face, voice and fingerprints.
“These companies, who were already kind of taking hold before the pandemic, really sunk their teeth in by convincing colleges and universities that ‘Your students are taking tests at home so you have to subject them to invasive surveillance, in order to maintain the academic integrity,’ ” said Fight for the Future’s director, Evan Greer.
E-proctoring companies argue concerns about surveillance are overblown since the data they collect is limited. While facial recognition is highly controversial in California – its use by law enforcement was banned until this year — both Respondus and a competitor, Proctorio, say their products use a simpler method, facial detection, which is able to determine whether or not a human face is present in the video, but cannot identify that person.
“When you take a picture with a Nikon camera and it places a green box around human faces on the preview screen, that is an anonymous process – it is not creating a biometric template and matching the image to another biometric template that has been stored in a database,” said Feeney.
