Instructors And School Administrators Are Somehow Managing To Make Intrusive Testing Spyware Even Worse
Furnished content.
The COVIDian dystopia continues. After a brief respite, infections and deaths have surged, strongly suggesting the "we're not doing anything about it" plan adopted by many states is fattening the curve. With infections spreading once again, the ushering of children back to school seems to have been short-sighted.But not all the kids are in school. Some are still engaged in distance learning. For many, this means nothing more than logging in and completing posted assignments using suites of tools that slurp up plenty of user data. For others, it feels more being forced to bring their schools home. In an effort to stop cheating and ensure "attendance," schools are deploying spyware that makes the most of built-in cameras, biometric scanning, and a host of other intrusions that make staying home at least as irritating as actually being in school.The EFF covered some of these disturbing developments back in August, when some schools were kicking off their school years. Bad news abounded.Recorded patterns of keystrokes and facial recognition supposedly confirm whether the student signing up for a test is the one taking it; gaze-monitoring or eye-tracking is meant to ensure that students don’t look off-screen too long, where they might have answers written down; microphones and cameras record students’ surroundings, broadcasting them to a proctor, who must ensure that no one else is in the room. So much for the sanctity of the home -- the location regarded as the most private of private spaces, worthy of the utmost in Fourth Amendment protections. Unfortunately, the tradeoff for distance learning appears to mean students must give up almost all of their privacy in exchange for not being arrested for truancy.School isn't out yet. And there's even more intrusiveness to report. It's not just the stripping of privacy that's adding to the dystopian atmosphere hovering oppressively over 2020. It's also the Kafka+Orwell aspects of at-home monitoring, as Todd Feathers and Janus Rose report for Vice.The first part of this aligns with the EFF's earlier reporting: exam software developers are giving school administrators an insane amount of access to students' devices.Like its competitors in the exam surveillance industry, Respondus uses a combination of facial detection, eye tracking, and algorithms that measure “anomalies” in metrics like head movement, mouse clicks, and scrolling rates to flag students exhibiting behavior that differs from the class norm. Then it just gets surreal.These programs also often require students to do 360-degree webcam scans of the rooms in which they’re testing to ensure they don’t have any illicit learning material in sight. Not surreal enough for Respondus and its customers, apparently. Instructions vary from school to school, but Wilfrid Laurier University students are given an entire gauntlet to run through just for the privilege of taking a test. One set of instructions seems to ask students to roll the dice on permanently damaging their ears.[O]ne WLU professor wrote that anyone who wished to use foam noise-cancelling ear plugs must “in plain view of your webcam … place the ear plugs on your desk and use a hard object to hit each ear plug before putting it in your ear—if they are indeed just foam ear plugs they will not be harmed.” And there's so much more! Instructors are taking the intrusiveness baked into Respondus' exam spyware and adding their own twists. If these weren't tied to education products, one might assume sexual predators were on the prowl. (One might still assume that, perhaps not even incorrectly. We'll see how this all shakes out!)Other instructors required students to buy hand mirrors and hold them up to their webcams prior to beginning a test to ensure they hadn’t written anything on the webcam. Not every instructor is adding more evil. Some seem to be concerned about the software itself -- mainly its reliability and its willingness to see everything unexpected as cheating. But it's not much less dystopian to advise students on how best to ensure the school's spyware functions properly during tests. Advice from profs includes telling students to keep everyone else at home off the internet while testing (presumably so no one pings out while submitting answers) and to avoid sitting in front of posters or decorations featuring people or animals so the spyware won't flag them for having other people in the room during a test.And it's not just Canada. An email sent by an instructor at Arkansas Tech told students to engage in a whole bunch of pre-test setup just to assure this small-minded prof they weren't cheating.Before beginning an exam, students were required to hold a mirror or their phone's front-facing camera to reflect the computer screen, and then adjust the webcam so the instructor can "see your face, both hands, your scratch paper, calculator, and the surface of your desk," according to an email obtained by Motherboard. If students failed to jump through all these distance learning hoops, the instructor would "set [their] exam score to 0%."The coupling of intrusive spyware with increasingly ridiculous demands from instructors has led to open, if mostly remote, revolt. Petitions have been circulated demanding software like this be banned. Feedback sites like ratemyprofessor have been bombed with negative reviews. Unfortunately, the schools have almost all the leverage. It's not that simple to take your "being educated" business elsewhere, especially in the middle of a global pandemic.That's not to say there haven't been any successes. Blowback from Wilfrid Laurier students forced the Canadian university to withdraw its demand that students set up their own in-home surveillance system by purchasing both an external webcam and a tripod. And some school administrators are at least responding with statements that indicate they recognize the people paying their salaries are unhappy. WLU administrators are promising to "look into" the reported problems, but it seems unlikely it will ditch its proctoring software. What it may do is clarify what instructors can actually ask students to do, which would address at least some of the complaints.But half-assing it isn't going to change the intrusive nature of the software itself. But, as noted earlier, students already well on their way to degrees or diplomas can't just head to the nearest competitor. And there's a good chance the nearest competitor is using something similar to reduce cheating, which means students will be jumping through one set of hoops just to find themselves jumping through another set at another school.This pandemic isn't going to be forever. If it's in the best interests of everyone to remain as distanced as possible, schools just need to accept the fact that cheating may be a bit more common. Accepting the reality of the situation would be healthier for everyone. Making a bad situation even worse with pervasive surveillance and insane instructions from administrators is the last thing students (and teachers) need right now.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 18-Nov-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Hugo Boss And Art Teacher Reach 'Amicable Solution' Over 'Be Boss, Be Kind' Trademark Application
Furnished content.
Several weeks back, we discussed how Hugo Boss, German upscale clothier, had opposed the trademark application for an artist who has taken to teaching online art classes during the pandemic. At issue was John Charles' decision to apply for a trademark on the phrase he used to sign off at the end of these classes: "Be Boss, Be Kind." That he had begun selling shirts and hats with the slogan on it, alongside the trademark application, was enough to get Hugo Boss' lawyers working on opposing the application and sending a legal threat letter to Charles, despite the fact that any claims about potential customer confusion between the two entities is laughable at best.As we noted at the time, while any legal letter such as this is at least mildly scary for someone like Charles, it should be stated that Hugo Boss wasn't overly threatening in the letter. Instead, the letter stated that the company would be opposing the trademark application, but was willing to drop the matter entirely if that application was withdrawn. In public comments, too, Hugo Boss made it clear that it was looking for an amicable resolution to the situation.And that, almost certainly in large part to the swift public backlash that occurred, is precisely what happened.Now, Hugo Boss and the popular artist have reached an 'amicable solution' - and John has said 'it was all worth it.'John said: 'We've now reached an amicable solution and the key thing is that we're able to continue our free online art classes and release our merchandise to the public officially. I'd like to say a massive thank you to the public for all their support, it's been really overwhelming." As usual, the exact details of this amicable solution aren't explained publicly, but it's worth noting that nowhere in any of the coverage currently is the acknowledgement that Charles has been allowed to proceed with his trademark application. And that, frankly, is the detail we should be focused on. Yes, it's good that Hugo Boss isn't threatening Charles with legal action. Yes, it's also good that he's being allowed to continue his art classes and even sell his merch with the slogan. That's somewhat more permissive than I expected out of Hugo Boss.But there was never a valid trademark issue here in the first place and, while I don't really see why Charles needs this trademark for which he applied, he certainly should have gotten it. "Be Boss, Be Kind" is not going to confuse someone into thinking a t-shirt is a Hugo Boss t-shirt. The reach of Charles' audience isn't a threat to Hugo Boss, either. No part of this screamed for a resolution of anything at all, amicable or otherwise.It's sort of an offshoot of how trademark bullying is effective. On the one hand, a large enough company can bully smaller entities into not using anything remotely like its registered trademark, validly or otherwise, just because of the costs associated with those threats. Or there are cases such as this, where the big company can bully the smaller entity until it gets news coverage talking about a supposedly amicable deal.Both are pernicious, if not equally so.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 18-Nov-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|