MeIn 2020, a Canadian university official named Ian Linkletter became increasingly wary of a new kind of technology that had exploded in use during the pandemic. Aimed at detecting cheating by college and high school students taking tests at home, it monitors student movements and analyzes ambient sounds via webcams and microphones to automatically detect suspicious behavior. Claimed to flag.
yes link letter I visited a section of the website for one of the anti-fraud companies called Proctorio, which is for instructors and administrators only. He shared what he found on social media.
Linkletter, who has now become a prominent critic of the technology, is being sued by the company. But he’s not the only one.
Linkletter’s ongoing case shows just how vicious the battle over so-called electronic supervision has become. At the height of the pandemic, it was estimated to be in use by nearly 63% of US and Canadian universities, and is believed to be still available in many of them even though students have returned to classrooms. I’m here.
There are many companies that offer versions of the controversial software, but Arizona-based Proctorio, in partnership with education giant McGraw Hill, is one of the largest. It has made a name for itself by taking on critics both in and out of court.
Founded in 2013 by current CEO Mike Olsen, the company uses face and gaze detection, among other tools, to monitor candidates and ensure they consistently interact with the exam. Make sure you are Artificial intelligence-based algorithms flag unusual behavior to university administrators for review.
However, how effective electronic supervision techniques are in detecting, and even deterring, fraudulent activity is a subject of debate. A notable instance in which the software was unable to recognize the face of a black student also attracted flattering attention.
legal battle
Benefits of this software to students may include accessibility. By eliminating the need to travel to a far-flung testing center, institutions can save on location and the cost of hiring examiners.
But student concerns, including those at the University of British Columbia (UBC), shared on Twitter and Reddit, prompted Linkletter, a learning technology expert at UBC’s Department of Education, to investigate the technology. argued that it violated privacy, increased anxiety, and could lead to suspicion among students.
In June 2020, Linkletter was shocked when Proctorio’s CEO shared a portion of a private conversation between a Proctorio support agent and a UBC student on Reddit. (Olsen has since apologized.)
One of Linkletter’s particular concerns was the lack of transparency about how Proctorio’s algorithm works. he wanted to know more.
In August 2020, he accessed Proctorio’s Instructor Help Center materials.
He tweeted links to seven unpublished YouTube videos he found there, explaining how the technology works. For example, how to detect unusual eye or head movements, or how to scan a room.
The following month, the company sued Linkletter, alleging copyright infringement, among other infringements. He argued that his actions would allow students to modify their behavior and that competitors might adopt similar technology, potentially harming Proctorio’s business.
“I was 36 when I was sued. If the case is over by 40, I’ll be lucky,” Linkletter told the Guardian. “It’s really clogging up my life.” He has had to run his GoFundMe campaign to cover his defense costs, which has so far totaled over $100,000. He and his wife have indefinitely put off having a family due to financial and health burdens and are receiving counseling to manage the anxiety caused by it.
“This lawsuit does not establish any legitimate interest,” Linkletter said. “From its inception, its purpose was to sabotage public discussion of academic surveillance software.”
Proctorio has a different take, telling The Guardian:
Meanwhile, in the second half of 2020, Eric JohnsonA computer engineering student at another university who used Proctorio, also became concerned about the technology. Johnson of the University of Miami, Ohio examined the files saved on his computer when he installed the software and uploaded a code snippet to the public. Johnson believed it supported his criticism that the software was invasive, unfair, and took too much control of test takers’ computers.
Proctorio removed the material. Johnson sued the company, alleging it was abusing copyright law to interfere with his free speech. I sued him, claiming that I had damaged my business relationship with the university.
Chilling arguments?
Students continue to share negative experiences with electronic supervision online. Procterio When ProcterrorU (The name is played by Proctorio and another company, ProctorU). However, Proctorio’s appeal to the law may have influenced public debate.
Multiple critics of the technology refused to speak to The Guardian, citing the aura of the lawsuit. Project founder and executive director Albert Fox Cahn said. “We’ve heard from dozens of individuals who want to speak out about this technology but fear its repercussions.”
Ethan Wild says he’s acting with caution because of Proctorio’s actions. Since announcing it licensed Proctorio using virus relief funds, it has campaigned against the use of automated supervision. Early 2021.
But a long-time follower of lawsuits, he is careful not to overstate the company and its technology, and refrains from criticizing Twitter. “I’m afraid of Proctorio,” he says.
But Proctorio argues that public discourse is alive and well. “A quick glance at our Twitter mentions shows that we have not stopped people from saying anything about us,” the spokesperson said.
Either way, Proctorio painted his target on his back, says Leah Holland, campaign and communications director for anti-surveillance advocacy group Fight for the Future.
I also found myself running a campaign against electronic directing that included a website satirizing Olsen, and fighting a subpoena by Proctorio. “Proctorio’s own behavior is the example we point to most often,” Holland said.
Racist technology?
There are many accusations against electronic supervision technology, but perhaps the worst is that the software can discriminate based on the user’s skin tone. In one instance, Proctorio was unable to see the faces of black students.
In early 2021, Amaya Ross, an African-American psychology student who recently completed her third year at Ohio State University, prepared to take a biology practice quiz using Proctorio for the first time in her dorm room. It was a. She knew we needed good lighting and made sure it was midday. But despite her best efforts, she was unable to get the software to detect her own face.
She eventually found that the Proctorio worked when standing directly under an overhead light, but it wasn’t the ideal way to take the online test. So she mounted a powerful flashlight on the shelf above her computer and shone it directly into her face. Only after more than 45 minutes did she successfully complete her 30 minute quiz. “My white friends had no issues,” she says. (The Mozilla Foundation Animated video of Amaya’s story.)
Amaya and her mother, Janice Wyatt-Ross, appreciate Proctorio’s responsiveness.After Janice, when stories grabbed attention posted about it on twitterthe company got in touch and helped troubleshoot what it called a “lighting issue.”
“Amaya is a problem solver. She could figure it out… [but] other students? ’ asks Janis. Automated supervision software needs to be comprehensive, he says, Amaya. “If you’re going to do something this big” — introduce large-scale electronic supervision — “make sure it’s not software that alienates people who already feel marginalized on campus.” she says.
Proctorio told the Guardian that it has hired an outside third party, BABL AI, to audit its face detection algorithm. autumn.
The broader question, of course, is whether the software achieves its overall goal of deterring scammers.
In one experiment published in 2021, 6 out of 30 computer science students were asked to cheat. Proctorio was unable to flag cheating students, but human reviewers detected 1 (out of 6).
Proctorio notes that this is a small study, including one of 648 students published in 2020, suggesting that supervisors prevent cheating. I mentioned other researchers who said they supported the effectiveness of supervision.
various paths
The Linkletter and Johnson cases have gone in different directions.
In March, Proctorio and Johnson reached a settlement. In a joint statement, Johnson acknowledged that some of his comments about Proctorio were “inaccurate and presented without context.” You seem to admit something. “We are aware that some face detection and gaze detection algorithms suffer from higher error rates or lower accuracy for people of color. It’s been around for some time,” the document read, adding that Proctorio was sensitive to the issue and had made “substantial efforts” to address it.
Linkletter, now moving on to another job as a librarian at another institution, continues to fight Proctorio’s lawsuit. He has several small legal victories. But he unsuccessfully tried to dismiss the case under a law designed to prevent individuals from being sued for voicing their opinions on matters of public interest. He has appealed that ruling in March, and two Canadian civil liberties groups have recently applied to join his appeal.
Class action lawsuits, separate from and unrelated to the Linkletter and Johnson lawsuits, have been filed against Proctorio and two other companies (Examity and Honorlock), violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) claims.
The law, considered one of the toughest digital privacy laws in the United States, was used to attack companies like Facebook (now Meta) and Google over their use of facial recognition, leading to large settlements. increase. Regulates how companies collect, store, use, and share biologically unique data (such as fingerprints, iris, retinas, and facial geometry scans) of Illinois residents.
The lawsuit alleges that both companies failed to provide the necessary data retention and destruction policies and, in the case of Proctorio and Honorlock, failed to obtain proper consent to obtain biometric information. Proctorio, for example, denies these accusations. The company says its technology doesn’t capture, collect, or use biometric information in the first place, because face and gaze detection can’t uniquely identify an individual’s face.
And in another lawsuit filed by a student against Cleveland State University, an Ohio judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for a student to scan a room via electronic proctoring software before taking an exam. I went down.
For Linkletter, this is where it all starts to hold companies accountable. AI surveillance has been normalized for pandemic students, he says. “[But] Whether it will be part of the future or shameful is yet to be determined. ”
