Online Colleges Could Spy On Students – By Law

skeazer writes "Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes. It sounds Orwellian, but the paragraph — part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act — is all but assured of becoming law by the fall. No one in Congress objects to it."

Comments

Right.

[PieSquared]

I haven't read TFA, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that by "spy cameras in their homes" they mean a camera attached to the computer while school work (or at least tests) is being done in an effort to make sure the degree goes to the person doing the work?

As long as it isn't required to be on except while the student is doing work that would take place under the eyes of a professor or TA in a "real" college and as long as enrollment is voluntary I can't imagine it's really that objectionable.

Re:Right.

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

What guarantee is there that the camera can't be used for other purposes?

Because you've unplugged it?

Re:Right.

[ZeroFactorial]

First, I am reminded of the Scott Adams quotes:

Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own problems.

Normal people don't understand this concept; they believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

Second, and more importantly, why are we so focused on putting systems in place to prevent cheating?

Spending time and resources on a system to FORCE obedience to the rule is inherently wrong, and is DEFINITELY Orwellian.
Lets start focusing on teaching our kids to NOT CHEAT instead of expending so much time and so many resources in an effort to force them to comply.
For those who still do cheat, life will ultimately expose them for the stupid jackass they are.

And if it doesn't? Then the educational requirements were probably unnecessary for the profession they chose and perhaps the requirements should be rethought.

You can sit a person down in a chair and force them to stay, but you can't force them to learn.
Learning is a choice. Not learning is also a choice.

Re:Right.

[Mike1024]

You're right - If you read TFA it says:

Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes.

It sounds Orwellian, but the paragraph â" part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act â" is all but assured of becoming law by the fall. No one in Congress objects to it.

The paragraph is actually about clamping down on cheating. It says that an institution that offers an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who does the work.

In other words the law says distance learning institutions must make an effort to verify work is done by the right person - and one technology those institutions are experimenting with is webcams.

It's typical slashdot to quote just enough of the article to give completely the wrong impression.

They can't stop it in person

[DustoneGT]

They can't stop the cheating in person...what makes them think they can stop it over the internet?

Re:They can't stop it in person

[Angus McNitt]

Or even use a remote desktop application (or a monitor splitter and spare kb and mouse) and have another person do the work while you sit there and appear studious.

FUD spreads better than butter

[RabidMoose]

This article is setting off my FUDDAR. Summary written to make the new law sound worse than it likely will be, and ommiting the reasons behind it.

More needless government intervention

[operagost]

First of all, I don't see a problem with an online school implementing this on their own, exclusively for exams, as long as the device can be disconnected and software removed afterwards. Don't like that? Try another school. Capitalism wins.

The real issue, I believe, is that the government seems to think it has the right to require that these devices be used. This will keep the price of these devices high and the slope nice and slippery.

Re:More needless government intervention

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

The real issue, I believe, is that the government seems to think it has the right to require that these devices be used.

So long as the government continues to pay out tuition subsidies, it should have the authority to specify the requirements for academic credibility. No doubt some "elite" institutions could forego government funding and avoid the regulation.

This is pretty similar to drunk driving laws vs. federal highway subsidies, and AT&T vs. wiring subsidies.

Re:And to think. . .

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

rather than getting a fancy piece of paper

While it may be true for you that school is for learning things, it really depends upon which school and program you mean. The majority of the training/education industry (as far as the government is concerned) is about meeting industry's HR needs, and has nothing to do with the lofty goals of education for the benefit of the individual.

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Don't believe me? Look at the economy in India.

Yes, I'd hate to have the second largest rate of economic growth since 1980 (behind China). Sounds awful.

Re:And to think. . .

[Bob-taro]

Why should the government create a law that requires that schools enforce no-cheating?

It's so some politician can brag, "I worked with congress to pass a law that eliminated cheating in American universities!"