ISU Student Body Declaration Against Proctortrack

ISU Student Body Declaration Against Proctortrack

written by Julia Retter and Danika Mayback

Introduction

As students of Illinois State University, we feel as if our right to privacy has been infringed. The implementation of Proctortrack is an invasion of our personal privacy, the privacy of those around us, and is an inherently discriminatory method of monitoring academic dishonesty. We wish the administration to rethink their approach to proctoring exams and want to work together to find an alternative solution.

Background

On September 10th, an Illinois State University Board of Trustees Representative signed a Service Agreement with Verificient Technologies and agreed to pay $99,999.00 for service of Proctortrack Level 2 for the duration of the school year (1). The Service Agreement was prepared August 3rd (prior to the start of the fall semester). On October 1st, 2020, Illinois State announced to students via email the purchase of Proctortrack, an AI proctoring software made by Verificient. Proctortrack will be utilized via ReggieNet for instructors to prevent cheating on assessments starting in November. Soon after this announcement, ISU student Jonah Beer started a petition on change.org detailing why he believes Proctortrack should not be used at Illinois State (2). The petition has over seven thousand signatures as of October 6th.

How Proctortrack Works

Proctortrack offers automated online remote proctoring to institutions by monitoring the student devices core operating system, desktop activity, visual footage of the user, audio, and the surroundings of the student (3). Software is downloaded on the student’s personal computer and smartphone to prevent cheating. Proctortrack detects suspicious behavior by flagging recordings for the instructor to review. Users are advised not to leave the view of the webcam, eat or drink, test in a busy area, leave open other tabs, use multiple monitors, look off-screen, or make any physical notes. A more complete list can be viewed on their website (4). Each time an individual accesses an assessment through Proctortrack, the student must agree to provide their (5):

Name
Photograph of an identity document, such as a driver’s license
Photograph of you
Telephone Number – (used for tech support only)
Name of the Test Sponsor(s) (i.e., the educational institution(s)) at which you are enrolled and course test information)
E-mail address
Test submissions
Screen-captures
Audio and video recordings of you taking tests
Room scan- scan of the test-room environment
Biometric data: Face and optionally, knuckle and voice scan, which may be considered as biometric information under certain regulatory regimes
Hardware and software details (background process list, system configuration information, etc.)
Possibly information such as social security provided by the institution

In addition, data collected are recorded for up to 180 days after an assessment. An identity profile, including the biometrics, are kept for up to one year (6).

Tech requirements to use Proctortrack are the following (6):

Computer:

Mac OSX Sierra 10.12 (varies depending on the source) or higher / Windows 7, 8, or higher
Intel/AMD processor, 2 GB RAM / Dual-core 2.4 Ghz CPU, 2 GB RAM or better
Mozilla Firefox v20.0 or higher / Google Chrome v25.0 or higher
Javascript enabled and Third Party Cookies enabled
800x600 resolution camera or better
Cable modem, DSL or better (300 kbps download, 250 kbps upload)

SmartPhone:

iOS 10 or later / Android OS version 6.0 or later
Battery backup (min 50%) or charger plugged in
Minimum free storage: 512 MB
Front and rear facing cameras
Continuous Internet connectivity

Proctortrack also uses recorded user data to improve their services through cookies, which record information after the exam is complete until both the program and browser end. The user must accept cookies to use this program. Recorded information includes an IP address, browser information, device information, ISP, OS, date/time stamp, and other system configurations (7).

Grievances Against Proctortrack

University Notification

The student body does not consent to a mid-semester switch in course requirements.

Illinois State University notified students on October 1st of the purchase of Proctortrack. The university should have allowed for ample time prior to the beginning of the semester for students to understand how Proctortrack works, what it collects, and how data is stored. Students were not considered in the decision to purchase Proctortrack mid-semester, and were unable to reconsider their attendance to Illinois State University in the Fall 2020 term regarding the use of invasive online proctoring. Students currently have no choice but to consent to the terms of service, risk failing classes, or drop out and accept the consequences (8).

The technological demands for Proctortrack are unfair and put unnecessary pressure on students. A portion of the student body may not already have access to supported operating systems, such as Linux or dated Windows and Mac systems. The university has a limited supply of loaner computers and webcams available for students who are unable to keep up with the financial burdens of online learning. In addition, not every student has a smartphone, phones with working cameras, or enough storage available to download the app. Students who fail to pass the onboarding exam due to insufficient technology are unable to take their assessments until they pass (9). Many students also share their internet with roommates or families in their respective residencies. Students who rely on publicly accessed internet may not have a private location to take an exam and risk having their data accessible by maleficent users accessing the same network.

Transparency

The student body does not consent to a company lacking transparency with their users.

Illinois State purchased Level 2 of the software (1). When accessing Proctortrack’s website to view the full extent of this level, over half of the included features are blurred from public viewing (10). In addition, Proctortrack can “in its sole discretion, modify or revise these terms and policies at any time, and you agree to be bound by such modifications or revisions.” (11)

Privacy and Security

The student body does not consent to the unreasonable search of their personal living spaces by requirement of Illinois State University or Proctortrack.

One of the most concerning aspects of Proctortrack is the amount of data collected from our personal devices and surroundings. The student body feels this level of data collection is excessive for taking an exam and is an infringement of our right to privacy, as many students do online school in their personal or shared bedrooms. The personal information required by Proctortrack violates the Search and Seizure clause of the 4th amendment. The fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (12)

A 360° search of our personal bedrooms is unreasonable. The quantity of personal information required to take a course assessment through this software is unjust. No other in-person exam offered by the university in previous semesters requires providing personal data to this extent. Many students have medical records, tax details, alt-services passwords, photographs of nonconsenting parties, and other private information stored on their computers or visible in their physical surroundings. Students sharing a room with a family member or roommate also compromise the personal security of the other party or parties.

Data Ownership

The student body does not consent to the monetization of their personal data.

Data acquired is recorded for up to a year. However, Verificient Technologies also states that “in the case of any merger, sale, acquisition, bankruptcy, liquidation, or other transfer of assets involving the company, any of your personal information which remains on the company’s servers at that time, may be transferred to and / or managed by the acquiring company or entity.” (5)

Discrimination

The student body does not consent to discrimination.

This software is designed to discriminate against atypical students (meaning, students who are not white with disabilities) (13, 14). Students with ADHD, ADD, dyslexia, anxiety, and other mental or physical disabilities will be flagged. An AI cannot compute a predictable algorithm for unpredictable behavior. A user is also likely to be reported for cheating if a student has any “unorthodox” behavior such as leaning in a chair in an odd way, fidgeting, or looking around while thinking. However, Proctortrack claims to be FERPA, ADA, and GDPR ready (10, 15, 16). This knowledge does not ease the minds of students, as the general student body is uncomfortable and anxious by being behaviorally analyzed by a software (17). Further, students of color may face difficulties with the identification process. Accounts report students of a dark complexion face difficulties in onboarding as the software has difficulties in reading their facial structure to confirm their identity (14).

Policing of Students

The student body does not consent to belittlement.

In the pursuit to end cheating through digital algorithms, instructors are taught to distrust students. Regarding the program “Turnitin”, plagiarism detection services contribute to instructors undermining students’ authority over their own work, policing their students, creating a hostile environment, supplanting good teaching with the use of inferior technology, and violating student privacy (18). If such statements are said of a plagiarism detection program, what can be said about Proctortrack? Just as we trust our professors to teach us what we need to learn, our professors need to trust us to learn (19).

To Our Instructors

Despite our best efforts, Illinois State may continue to ignore us and make decisions regarding the methods of instruction in our classroom time together. We urge you, please, do not force us to use Proctortrack at the encouragement of Illinois State’s administration. We acknowledge that you want to stop students from cheating, but please find another way. We ask you for your continued patience throughout these difficult times.

A Solution

We understand that online learning presents more issues with academic dishonesty, but Proctortrack is not the answer. Students and faculty are already comfortable in Zoom and with each other. We don’t need Proctortrack to watch us and collect personal information. Instead of an algorithm reporting “suspicious activity” for instructors, use a lockdown browser, such as Respondus. Professors who know us can verify our identities and watch us over Zoom. Let trusted teaching assistants help our professors, or even split the classes into smaller sections for exams. We, the student body, want to work with the administration to solve this problem. However, we are prepared to peacefully fight for our privacy if we are expected to comply with the utilization of this software. For these reasons, the general student body of Illinois State University feels uncomfortable with the implementation of Proctortrack in November. We believe Proctortrack is unfair, intrusive, and an unnecessary infringement upon our privacy.

References

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse