ProctorU, which has proctored over 2 million tests from more than 750,000 students last year and has “expanded rapidly” during the pandemic, offers several remote proctoring tools. Respondus Monitor’s AI analyzes facial imagery, motions, lighting, keyboard activity, mouse movements, hardware changes, and comparisons to other students who took the exam to detect purported instances of cheating. One in particular, Respondus Monitor, uses a student’s webcam and microphone to produce a recording of the student during an exam session. Respondus, the most widely used online proctoring service in the United States, offers several remote proctoring tools. Online Test Proctoring PlatformsĮPIC’s complaint addresses the five largest providers of online test proctoring systems: Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock. Test-takers subjected to AI-based proctoring have reported that the systems struggle to recognize faces of color and flag students with certain disabilities at higher rates. Research has shown that AI-particularly facial recognition systems-can encode bias and disproportionately harm students of color and students with disabilities. Moreover, the fundamental fairness of online proctoring systems has been called into serious doubt. Pointing a camera into a student’s home for hours at a time can reveal sensitive details about a student’s physical features, behaviors, disabilities, and family members and can induce undue stress on test-takers that undermines the integrity of exam sessions. The result is an opaque, unaccountable platform that can flag a student for cheating based on little more than atypical eye movements or unexpected shadows.Įven if a proctoring system does not raise a false flag-potentially resulting in severe disciplinary consequences-it inherently invades students’ privacy. Students enrolled in a class that uses a remote proctoring system cannot opt out of personal data collection or video surveillance of their intimate surroundings cannot avoid the system’s use of facial recognition and AI analysis and are generally denied access to the system’s underlying logic and determinations.
![examity extension chrome download examity extension chrome download](http://img.gtricks.com/chrome-xtensions.gif)
The growth of online test proctoring has all but forced many students to trade away their privacy rights in order to meet their academic obligations. This vast array of personal data is analyzed by artificial intelligence systems (and in some cases live proctors) to assign a risk score or otherwise flag students for possible indications of cheating. Online proctoring systems collect extensive personal information from students during remote exam sessions, including video, audio, keystroke patterns, and other biometric data captured through students’ computers. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, educational institutions have rapidly accelerated their adoption of online test proctoring systems as part of the shift to remote learning.
![examity extension chrome download examity extension chrome download](https://www.maketecheasier.com/assets/uploads/2016/06/download-chrome-extensions-packed-extension.png)
EPIC aims to ensure that students are not subjected to unfair, unreliable AI determinations or forced to choose between preserving their privacy and receiving an education. On the same day, EPIC sent letters to all five firms warning that EPIC is prepared to bring suit under the DCCPPA unless the companies agree to limit their collection of personal data, comply with basic requirements for trustworthy AI, and submit to annual third-party audits.
![examity extension chrome download examity extension chrome download](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jzgIsdeSH3g/maxresdefault.jpg)
Specifically, EPIC’s complaint charges that Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock have engaged in excessive collection of students’ biometric and other personal data and have routinely relied on opaque, unproven, and potentially biased AI analysis to detect alleged signs of cheating. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCCPPA) and the Federal Trade Commission Act. On December 9, 2020, EPIC filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia alleging that five major providers of online test proctoring services have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the D.C. Attorney General to take enforcement action against five online test proctoring firms