![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/privacy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
An\u00a0online \u201cproctor\u201d<\/a>\u00a0who can survey a student\u2019s home and\u00a0manipulate the mouse<\/a>\u00a0on their computer as the student takes an exam. A remote-learning platform that takes\u00a0face scans and voiceprints<\/a>\u00a0of students. Virtual classrooms where strangers can\u00a0pop up out of the blue<\/a>\u00a0and see who\u2019s in class.<\/p>\n These three unnerving scenarios are not hypothetical. Rather, they stand as stark, real-life examples of how remote learning during the pandemic \u2013 both at the K-12 and college level \u2013 has become riddled with threats to students\u2019 privacy.<\/p>\n As a\u00a0scholar of<\/a>\u00a0privacy<\/a>, I believe all the electronic eyes watching students these days have created privacy concerns that merit more attention.<\/p>\n Which is why, increasingly, you will see aggrieved\u00a0students<\/a>,\u00a0parents<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0digital privacy advocates<\/a>\u00a0seeking to hold schools and technology platforms accountable for running afoul of student privacy law.<\/p>\n For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has accused that state of\u00a0lacking sufficient measures to protect the privacy of school and college students<\/a>.<\/p>\n Students are taking measures to force universities to stop the use of invasive software such as proctoring apps, which some schools and colleges use to make sure students don\u2019t cheat on exams. They have\u00a0filed numerous petitions<\/a>\u00a0asking administrators and teachers to end the use of these apps. In a letter to the California Supreme Court, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international nonprofit that defends digital rights, wrote that the use of remote-proctoring technologies is basically the same as\u00a0spying<\/a>.<\/p>\n A series of security breaches serves to illustrate why students and privacy advocates are fighting against online proctor apps.<\/p>\n For instance, in July 2020, online proctoring service\u00a0ProctorU<\/a>\u00a0suffered a cyberbreach in which sensitive personal information for\u00a0444,000 students<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 including their names, email address, home addresses, phone numbers and passwords \u2013 was leaked. This data then became\u00a0available in online hacker forums<\/a>. Cybercriminals may use such information to launch phishing attacks to\u00a0steal people\u2019s identities and falsely obtain loans using their names<\/a>.<\/p>\n A\u00a0public petition<\/a>\u00a0filed by students at Washington State University has expressed concerns about ProctorU\u2019s weak security practices. The petition had over 1,900 signatures as of Nov. 5.<\/p>\n Some online proctoring companies have engaged in activities that violate students\u2019 privacy. The online proctoring software Proctorio\u2019s CEO, for example,\u00a0violated a student\u2019s privacy<\/a>\u00a0by posting the student\u2019s chats on the social news forum Reddit.<\/p>\n To use online proctoring apps, students are\u00a0required to provide full access to their devices including all personal files<\/a>. They are also asked to\u00a0turn on their computer\u2019s video camera and microphone<\/a>. Some national advocacy groups of parents, teachers and community members argue that requiring students to turn on their cameras with rooms in the background during virtual classes or exams for\u00a0a stranger<\/a>\u00a0to watch\u00a0would violate their civil rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n Fair information practices<\/a>, a set of principles established by the International Association of Privacy Professionals, require that information be collected by fair means. Online proctoring apps use\u00a0methods that can cause anxiety and stress among many students<\/a>\u00a0and are thus unfair.<\/p>\n When students are forced to disclose sensitive information against their wishes, it can\u00a0harm them psychologically<\/a>. Some students also experience physical symptoms due to stress and anxiety. One student\u00a0literally vomited<\/a>\u00a0due to the stress from a statistics exam. She did so at her desk at home because\u00a0no bathroom breaks were permitted<\/a>.<\/p>\n These privacy-invasive\u00a0proctoring tools rely on artificial intelligence<\/a>, which affect certain groups more adversely.<\/p>\n For instance, these programs may flag body-focused repetitive behaviors such as\u00a0trichotillomania<\/a>,\u00a0chronic tic disorder<\/a>\u00a0and other health disorders, as cheating.<\/p>\n Artificial intelligence also performs poorly in identifying the faces of students who are\u00a0ethnic minorities<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0darker-skinned<\/a>\u00a0individuals. In some cases, such students go through extra hassles. They may also need to contact the technical support team to resolve the problem and hence get\u00a0less than allotted time to complete the exam<\/a>.<\/p>\n One student who experienced this snafu blamed the situation on \u201cracist technology<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Providers of remote learning and technology solutions and schools are facing several lawsuits and regulatory actions.<\/p>\n For example, an Illinois parent has sued Google. The lawsuit alleged that Google\u2019s G Suite for Education apps\u00a0illegally collected children\u2019s biometric data, such as facial scans and voiceprints<\/a>, which are a human voice\u2019s measurable characteristics that identify an individual. Such practices violate the\u00a0Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n In April, a group of California parents\u00a0filed a federal lawsuit against G Suite<\/a>\u00a0on similar grounds.<\/p>\n In some cases, officials have taken action to reduce the adverse privacy effects posed by remote learning and technology solutions that had weak security. For instance, New York\u2019s Department of Education\u00a0banned video communications app Zoom due to privacy and other concerns<\/a>. Many instances were reported in which Zoom\u2019s\u00a0weak cybersecurity<\/a>\u00a0failed to prevent a form of harassment known as \u201cZoombombing<\/a>,\u201d in which intruders could gain access to virtual classrooms.<\/p>\n In such situations, schools face two major problems. First, video, audio and chat sessions in Zoom recordings have personally identifiable information such as faces, voices and names. These education records are thus subject to\u00a0the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act<\/a>, which is meant to\u00a0protect the privacy of student education records<\/a>.<\/p>\n Such information should not be accessed by anyone who is not in the class. When teachers cannot prevent unintended participants from joining a virtual class, there is a\u00a0violation<\/a>\u00a0of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.<\/p>\n The increasing scrutiny of and criticism for privacy-invasive software, which resembles\u00a0spyware<\/a>, may require schools and universities to reconsider their use. One option could be to go for open-note, open-book exams that do not require proctoring.<\/p>\n In general, artificial intelligence\u00a0is not developed well<\/a>. For instance, in order to ensure that artificial intelligence algorithms can accurately predict cheating in exams, they may need to be\u00a0trained with millions of pictures and videos<\/a>\u00a0of student cheating. This has not yet happened in most areas including remote learning. The artificial intelligence industry has been described as being at\u00a0an infant stage of development<\/a>. Even simpler algorithms such as facial recognition applications have been mainly\u00a0trained to identify white males<\/a>\u00a0and, consequently,\u00a0misidentify ethnic minorities<\/a>. Thus, I don\u2019t believe this technology is currently appropriate for remote proctoring.<\/p>\nConcerns and criticisms<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Students compelled to share sensitive data<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Poor technology performance<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Lawsuits and regulatory concerns<\/strong><\/h4>\n
What K-12 schools and universities can do<\/strong><\/h4>\n