An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#2Uhmm yeah this is just so wrong. Proctorio CEO Mike Olsen accused Linkletter of ...
" potentially showing students ways to circumvent the software, thus risking the safety and security of the millions of students who use our platform.”
Say what? In what way(s?) did his actions impact on the students' safety or security? The videos have been pulled but note that the CEO is talking about how showing people how to 'possibly' (his words not mine) circumvert the proctoring in any way shape or form affects the students' safety or security?
[Edit for the pedantic, CEO said 'potentially' rather than 'possibly'.]
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#3Why anyone would pay these folks anything is beyond me. While cheating is certainly a thing, and easier to do online, violating people's personal space and trusting in some average behavior BS to flag things as suspicious does not seem worth the cost. Add in ridiculous behavior by the company, if I were an educational institution I'd stay far away from these people. I remember reading about something similar being used to take screening tests for programmers which watched via the camera to ensure the test taker was not cheating; I'd tell any employer who wanted such a thing to get lost.
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#4This (for example) should be wildly illegal, if it isn't already:
"[Proctorio CEO] Olsen posted a copy of the student’s chat logs"
But also - colleges and universities should simply not be using this software. Students are not, in general, able to give active consent for such software to be used against their interest.
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#5If there are any lawyers here, I'd love thoughts on whether these tools (used in employment/interview settings) violate 29 CFR § 801.4 - Prohibitions on lie detector use. (I know this article is about schools and in Canada). I've been thinking these tools do violate, but never filed a case alleging it (yet). Specifically, these anti-cheat "algorithms" seem to be "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual." I mean, the entire purpose is to determine if the prospective employee is honest. Any thoughts?
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#6If there are any lawyers here, I'd love thoughts on whether these tools (used in employment/interview settings) violate 29 CFR § 801.4 - Prohibitions on lie detector use. (I know this article is about schools and in Canada). I've been thinking these tools do violate, but never filed a case alleging it (yet). Specifically, these anti-cheat "algorithms" seem to be "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psyc…
They aren't invasive physiological analyzers, and they aren't assessing honesty, they are detecting behaviors, so no.
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#7Why anyone would pay these folks anything is beyond me. While cheating is certainly a thing, and easier to do online, violating people's personal space and trusting in some average behavior BS to flag things as suspicious does not seem worth the cost. Add in ridiculous behavior by the company, if I were an educational institution I'd stay far away from these people. I remember reading about something similar being us…
The users don't pay. The overlords pay to inflict it on the users, like law enforcement.
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#8If there are any lawyers here, I'd love thoughts on whether these tools (used in employment/interview settings) violate 29 CFR § 801.4 - Prohibitions on lie detector use. (I know this article is about schools and in Canada). I've been thinking these tools do violate, but never filed a case alleging it (yet). Specifically, these anti-cheat "algorithms" seem to be "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psyc…
They aren't invasive physiological analyzers, and they aren't assessing honesty, they are detecting behaviors, so no.
Detecting behaviors to assess what though? Isn't that exactly what a lie detector does? It claims to detect electrical signals of behaviors (stress) and then that goes to determine if the person is honest.
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#9If there are any lawyers here, I'd love thoughts on whether these tools (used in employment/interview settings) violate 29 CFR § 801.4 - Prohibitions on lie detector use. (I know this article is about schools and in Canada). I've been thinking these tools do violate, but never filed a case alleging it (yet). Specifically, these anti-cheat "algorithms" seem to be "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psyc…
They aren't invasive physiological analyzers, and they aren't assessing honesty, they are detecting behaviors, so no.
Lying is a behavior, and cheating is dishonest.
Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
#10> The purpose of this restraining order is simply to prevent the sharing of confidential information.
How can information gathered from examining a publicly available product possibly be confidential?