The study takes a close look at four popular proctoring tools, like Examplify and Exam4,Proctor U, Honor Loc and the authors even went so far as to reverse engineer the software to see how it really works. Unironically, while these tools are meant to stop cheating, they can be surprisingly easy to get around, this is also not the only issue that has arised with these programs. One platform’s facial recognition feature had a hard time recognizing people with darker skin tones, which is really concerning.

On top of those tech problems, the article also points out just how much access this software has to students’ computers, collecting data even before the exam starts. The authors really emphasize that we need to find a balance between keeping things honest and respecting students' rights. They even suggest some ways to make this whole process safer and fairer. If you're curious about how tech is shaking things up in legal exams and what educators should think about before they dive in, this piece is definitely worth a read.

The research pulls together some reviews and a survey from over 100 students who took exams that were proctored online. The authors discovered that a bunch of students had worries about their privacy and security. Some were okay with stuff like lockdown browsers, but many really didn’t like having their webcams and mics recording them or letting software peek into their browser history. Most of them didn’t think the software actually prevented cheating, yet they used it anyway because their schools made them. If not, they probably would have just gotten a 0 on the exam.

The study also highlights how the whole power dynamic plays a big role here. A lot of students just went with it because they felt like they had no choice. Even though they had legit concerns, they trusted their schools enough to go through the process. The article suggests that universities should be more open with students about why they’re using these proctoring tools and make it easier to uninstall the software after exams. It really points out how important it is to listen to student opinions when it comes to tech in education. One student quoted, “it feels much weirder than proctoring with a professor . . . They’re being watched closer up, by a stranger, and in a place more private than a classroom. . . students described their experiences as

everything from ‘uncomfortable’ to ‘intrusive’ to ‘sketchy”’ [Chin, 2020].

C:This article takes a look at the ethical issues with using AI for proctoring exams. They also examine how  fairness, privacy, and trust get tested when students are being looked at through webcams and listened to through microphones.

They mention that schools brought in these tools to keep things honest but it may be doing the opposite and we won’t know the effect until later down the line. Some students say it feels a bit like being watched by a ‘creepy’ Big Brother, which really shows how this kind of surveillance can hurt the safe learning space that schools want to create.

The writers talk about how these systems usually rely on facial recognition and tracking tools that might show some bias, depending on the software that's being used. For example, students with darker skin or those who have disabilities that make them move around a lot can be wrongly accused of cheating. They emphasize that just because a technology is fancy doesn’t mean it’s reliable or just. Coghlan and the others suggest that schools shouldn’t just go for efficiency or automation when deciding on issues of academic integrity. They should think about ethics that put students’ rights and dignity first. This article is super important for any school leaders or policy-makers who are trying to find a balance between using tech and leading with strong values.

For instance, there’s Jazi, who got flagged for making 'suspicious noise' while taking an exam at home because she had caregiving duties, and then there’s Ashley, who ended up in tears when the proctor took control of her mouse during a test. These stories really highlight how this kind of spying can make students more anxious and pile on obstacles to their success.

Barrett points out that these proctoring tools often use biased tech, like facial recognition software that doesn’t work well for students of color, transgender students, and those with disabilities.

She goes on to say that this software isn’t helpful for learning, it’s not something schools really need, and it definitely isn’t a must-have. Instead, it just makes the gap wider, breaks trust among students and teachers, and makes surveillance a normal part of school life. Plus, she mentions that the laws we have, like FERPA and the ADA, don’t do a good job of keeping students safe, and there’s hardly any enforcement happening. Barrett urges schools to ditch these systems and look for better, more fair options that focus on students. This article is a strong reminder that keeping academic honesty shouldn’t come at the expense of treating students with dignity and making sure everyone feels included.

C: This scoping review breaks down how privacy does or doesn’t work when schools use these  proctoring tools. It helps educational leaders understand where current practices fall short and what ethical privacy protection really looks like.

This review looks into how online proctoring systems (OPS) affect student privacy, using Helen Nissenbaum’s idea of “contextual integrity” as a guide. The authors dove into 17 peer-reviewed studies and found that these systems often grab and share really sensitive info—like video and audio recordings, scans of IDs, network activity, keystrokes, and facial images. They point out that often, these tools cross lines that students and teachers would think are reasonable when it comes to what info flows in a classroom.

The article mentions that most schools haven’t really figured out who’s in charge of keeping student data safe. Plus, lots of privacy ideas—like being open, fair, and only collecting what’s needed—are talked about in policies but don’t always get followed in real life. The authors note that “there is a need to clarify how these principles should be implemented and sustained, and what privacy concerns and actors they relate to.” Basically, schools are using these fancy surveillance tools without really grasping the risks or having a clear plan for accountability. This piece is especially important for college leaders who want to make sure that privacy protections are more than just lip service and are actually part of their policies and technology.

In this Teen Vogue piece, Tat Bellamy-Walker tells the story of Aaron Ogletree, a student at Cleveland State University who sued the school after they made him scan his bedroom before taking an online test. He claimed it messed with his Fourth Amendment rights since they forced him to reveal personal stuff, like his meds and tax documents. The judge agreed with him, saying that Ogletree’s privacy interest outweighed the university’s interest in preventing cheating. This case became one of the first to rule against room scans, and it's sparked more student-led resistance across the country.

This ties Ogletree's experience to a larger trend. Like, take the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign they've stepped back from using some proctoring tools because of concerns around privacy and fairness. Plus, there are lawsuits happening over privacy laws in Illinois, and California has these new regulations that restrict how much info proctoring tools can collect from students.Experts like Sara Geoghegan from EPIC remind us that students shouldn’t have to trade their privacy for an education. She says, 'We should be focused on education, not surveillance.' This article packs a punch by showing how laws, decisions by leaders, and student activism are all coming together right now.

The thing is, it wouldn’t recognize her face unless she shined a really bright lamp on herself, which made taking tests super stressful and uncomfortable. So, she went to the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, claiming that the software is unfair to people with darker skin. And she’s definitely not the only one lots of other students of color have run into the same problem, having to use harsh lights or set up weird angles just to be seen by the software (Meaker, 2023).

The article explores why this is happening. Experts like Deborah Raji note that these facial recognition tools were mostly trained on lighter skin tones and male faces, which means they often miss folks with darker skin. What makes Pocornie’s case unique is that, while most lawsuits focus on privacy issues, hers is about racial bias. Her fight is pushing universities and lawmakers to think about how tech affects marginalized students in ways that usually get ignored. Meaker (2023) highlights that even now, after the pandemic, this kind of tech is still in use, and if nothing changes, the same problems will just keep happening.

In her article, she talks about universities using tools like ProctorU and Proctorio, which use webcams, browser locks, and even AI to catch cheating behaviors. Students shared some pretty wild concerns, like one from U.C.L.A. who got flagged just for sneezing, and another who felt totally weird being watched while taking a test. Professors aren't too thrilled about it either like Sue Escobar from CSU Sacramento, who decided to skip the webcam features altogether since they felt too invasive.

What stands out is how different schools are handling this. For instance, UC Berkeley decided to ban online proctoring because some students in rural or low-income areas just couldn't get reliable internet or the devices they needed. On the flip side, ProctorU has tried to defend their methods by putting together a “Student Bill of Rights,” but people are still worried. Daniels doesn’t just share the facts; she invites conversation about whether trust and honesty can take the place of all this watching, especially now that remote learning is here to stay. Her article really highlights what students and teachers are going through and challenges school leaders to think about whether these tech solutions really match their values.

In this piece, James Doyle Brown Jr. is really giving Arizona State University a hard look over their use of Honorlock, which is that remote proctoring tool that requires students to scan their rooms before online tests. He points out a recent ruling from Ohio where a judge said those room scans are actually unconstitutional because they invade privacy. Sure, ASU doesn't have to follow that ruling, but Brown thinks they should still be responsible and ditch Honorlock. He argues it could lead to violating students' rights. Plus, students are already making noise about it organizing petitions and posting tons of one-star reviews, which just shows how much they're not on board with this and how stressed it makes them feel.

Brown also shares thoughts from some ASU faculty who feel this kind of surveillance might do more harm than good. For example, law professor Ben McJunkin warns that if students get used to showing their personal spaces online, it could actually mess with their legal protections at home. Then there's Catherine O'Donnell, another professor, who says the university should focus more on creating assessments that help students learn instead of relying on these digital tools to keep them in check. The article really pushes for school leaders to remember that privacy is crucial for the well-being of the community. Ignoring how students feel about this sends a bad message about trust, fairness, and what academics should stand for.

C: This blog post talks about why authentic assessment might be a better choice than online proctoring tools like Respondus. It really digs into how it builds trust among students and focuses on real learning instead of just keeping an eye on them.

Caleb Green talks about how tools like Respondus Lockdown Browser and Respondus Monitor are meant to prevent cheating. But honestly, they often just make students feel like they're under a microscope instead of getting the help they need. These tools check everything from how you move your face to scanning your whole room, and Green points out how that creates a vibe of distrust in the classroom. He mentions that even though these proctoring tools are supposed to keep things honest, students have called them "malware" and said they'd never download them if they had a choice. As Green puts it, "There’s a difference between posting something on social media and being forced to scan your bedroom to prove you’re not cheating" (Green, 2025).

Instead of relying on all this surveillance, the blog suggests that teachers rethink how they assess learning. Green brings up Grant Wiggins’s idea of authentic assessment, where students get to use their knowledge in real-world situations, which makes cheating a lot tougher. He explains that tasks like breaking down a speech or coming up with a solution really push students to show they understand, not just memorize stuff. This type of assessment actually makes it less tempting to cheat because it leans more toward creativity and practical application. Green (2025) also admits that this method takes longer to grade and might not work for every class, but he believes it’s totally worth it if it helps students feel empowered and respected. The article is a great read for teachers looking to keep academic integrity while also building trust with their students.