Proctoring software companies accused of providing invasive, discriminatory software
Five companies providing online test proctoring software and services have been accused of ' unfair and deceptive ' business practices . A complaint by US non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) with the District of Columbia Attorney General accused Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock of developing invasive software, discriminatiing against ‘non-typical’ students, and of the deceptive use of facial recognition. It cited a 'reliance on opaque, unproven AI analysis to flag purported instances of cheating.' The use of proctoring software using keystroke patterns, facial recognition, gaze-monitoring and recordings of students’ surroundings to monitor students and flag suspected cheating in home tests was accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. These techniques raised concerns over mass biometric surveillance, biased outcomes and algorithmic transparency. EPIC’s complaint set a precedent in challenging black-box algorithms in education. Since the complaint was filed in 2020, the Federal Trade Commission warned software companies against surveillance of students, and a federal legal ruling outlawed practices such as scanning students’ rooms. System 🤖 Respondus ProctorU Proctorio Examity Honorlock Operator: Developer: Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, Honorlock Country: USA Sector: Education Purpose: Proctoring Technology: Facial analysis; Facial recognition; Gaze recognition; Location recognition; Prediction algorithm Issue: Accuracy/reliability; Bias/discrimination; Privacy; Surveillances/appeals Legal, regulatory 👩🏼⚖️ EPIC (2020). Complaint and Request for Investigation, Injunction, and Other Relief (pdf)
- Date it happened
- 2020-03-01
- Product, system or model
- Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, Honorlock
This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.
This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.