Remote Proctoring deemed illegal as violation of 4th amendment rights?

[Pats20]

Drop the course. Take the exam in one of those closed rooms you can reserve at the library. Take the F. etc etc etc

There are so many other options and not one piece of this involves government coercion.

This ^^^^^
I agree. If you don’t agree to the terms of the proctoring service, then go take it in person. Case dismissed.

[ashkir]

Youch.

Yeah. I can see the violation. If you're FORCED to take it in your private home, it is a violation. proctored tests should also allow you to use testing centers for sure. But not many universities have deals with the big centers. It looks like this was a violation because it wasn't done PRIVATELY. This was done publicly to the class.

[jsd]

If you're FORCED to take it in your private home, it is a violation.

No one forced him to enroll, nor continue the course once it shifted to online delivery. 

It's like claiming a violation of first amendment rights because a professor told you to quiet down and stop bugging other students in a butt-in-seat course. Institutions are allowed to set rules a policy, you're not forced to participate.

[LevelUP]

This doesn't sound like a violation of the 4th amendment rights. If a college said hey, via cam, show me every room in your house at this exact time, or we are suspending you from college, then that sounds like a violation.

With proctoring, you are volunteering to show your room in exchange for the convenience of testing at home. Any judge with 1/2 of a brain would be able to see this. 

Cleveland State University could offer students in-person testing for a $200 fee while waiting for the case to settle.

[rachel83az]

There are some classes that you must pass if you want to continue with your degree program. For students who already dropped tens of thousands of dollars on a degree, I can see how saying "show us your room or don't pass" would feel like blackmail. Like you don't have a choice. Especially if you had signed up for in-person classes and had no idea that they'd wind up transitioning to being "proctored" in this way.

But that doesn't mean it's a 4th amendment violation. That part is just silly.

[bluebooger]

I don't see how its a violation even if its a state school that receives tax payer money

this is not really a case of the government forcing or denying something
this is a university

[davewill]

I can understand not liking home proctoring and finding it intrusive, but this ruling makes no sense. It's voluntary. The state isn't forcing anyone to enroll at Cleveland State University and take courses that require proctoring. It's a voluntary action taken by the student.

If I invite an officer into my home, he hasn't violated my 4th amendment rights if he takes a look at the family portraits that i hung on the wall (or, for that matter, notices all that crack i might have left on my coffee table)

---

There are state privacy laws that seem to be a much better fit for challenging proctoring practices. But a 4th amendment challenge seems really out there.

Not really. Having to forego the classes you need for your degree (or even just want to take because they are interesting) does not strike me as a true "choice". After all, it's a public college and you shouldn't be "locked out" by something like this.

Your analogy isn't quite right, either. A more correct analogy would be if you had to invite an police officer into your home in order to get a building permit or something. Saying that you don't HAVE to remodel your house if you don't want an officer inside doesn't quite cut it.

The fact that this school applied the requirement so haphazardly makes it difficult to argue that it was a necessary intrusion. I suspect that private enterprises like most of the alternative credit providers won't be affected as they are not state actors. However, since virtually all universities and colleges accept federal funds, they may all end up having to toe this line.

The obvious workarounds for local students are a testing center with in-person proctors, or on-campus testing rooms that can then be "scanned" as they are doing now. I don't really know what truly remote programs are supposed to do.

[studyingfortests]

It's shocking to me how poorly educated most folks are and don't realize that most constitutional rights of this type extend to actions of the government, not to agreements between private individuals and private corporations.

Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head and requiring them to take proctored exams. You can choose a school that doesn't use intrusive proctoring. Problem solved. No rights violation.

[MNomadic]

It's shocking to me how poorly educated most folks are and don't realize that most constitutional rights of this type extend to actions of the government, not to agreements between private individuals and private corporations.

Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head and requiring them to take proctored exams. You can choose a school that doesn't use intrusive proctoring. Problem solved. No rights violation.

Man, the comments/complaits I'm seeing across multiple forums saying this will lead to all remote proctoring ending, even for private universities and private certification bodies....

Then again, people think being banned on social media is a violation of the first amendment...

[Chankosumo]

I believe the security concerns about these proctoring services are being severely underestimated. Despite the fact that I and many of us here took and will in the future take proctored exams, I would support a complete ban on them. Yes, even if it means the end of my education adventures. I see potential online scams as consequences of online proctoring. I'll be happier knowing there will be less opportunities for scammers devastating people's lives. I have seen enough examples, you can watch many in youtube. That is my opinion.

P.S.
Sophia and CSM Learn course are using good enough methods to recognize it is us who take the test with keyboard writing patterns. Improving or creating similar systems of authentication seem a lot better to me. A lot more secure above all.