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

I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they watch that too?

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[ad0n]

In all seriousness, isn't this why we have proctors, so that someone can watch you while you perform tasks required for your grade?

Simple answer: cost. I work at a community college, and although we do have an academic testing centre -- the priority is to provide an alternate testing environment for students with disabilities. The secondary priority is students who miss tests for legitimate reasons (medical, weather, etc.).

There simply isn't capacity to allow every student in every online course to come onto campus to complete their assessments. It isn't built into the costing/tuition.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Octorian]

I did a whole master's degree through a distance program. When I had to take tests, I did need a proctor. Basically, you have someone who meets certain requirements fill out some paperwork, and then they manage the test administration stuff for the school.

For most of that, I used the testing center at the local community college, which did charge. Of course it could have been free, if I found some other impartial person willing to do it, but I liked the isolated independent environment.

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.

[EvanED]

For any "online" institution I've known, the tests need to be done at an approved institute under supervision, and after presenting proper ID, etc.

Well, that's the thing... they're trying to break that restriction.

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.

Re:Right.

[znerk]

I always thought it stood for "full", as in "complete".

As in "read the full manual" or "read the full article".

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.

So....

[Otter]

Basically, this is talking about requiring webcams or biometric devices when you take an online exam. Whether or not that's a good idea, it hardly qualifies as "Orwellian". Timothy and skeazer seem to think this is going to involve 24/7 cameras in your bedroom or something like that.

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.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[Zenaku]

Well I did read the article, and it is a clear cut case of FUD. The law says only that these schools must be able to prove that the person enrolled is the person doing the work.

All that crap about requiring them to put cameras in students homes is just some disingenuous person trying to claim that that is what it would take, because they don't think colleges have that verification responsibility.

What this really comes down to is that most distance learning institutions require students to take their exams at a testing center, where they provide identification and are under the observation of a proctor. And those that don't are raising a fuss because they would prefer not to pay for that.

FUD is exactly what it is -- the are proposing the most ridiculous solution that they can think of to bring them into compliance with such a law, because they would prefer not to have to comply at all.

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.

Mod parent down! Oops, it's the story!

[LostCluster]

Spy camera? Not quite. They're basically just posing a "Hold up a picture of yourself with today's local newspaper so we know you are where you say you are." type challenge to prove that when you sit down for a high-stakes college exam, you are who you say you are.

It's not like they're requiring your iSight camera be on 24/7. So this sensational headline doesn't match the story. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Verify who is doing the work

[TurdTapper]

That's all, it doesn't require cameras, just that they can prove who is doing the work. It could be as simple as still requiring the student to go to a proctor to take an exam. There's nothing like trying to make something seem worse than it is. This poster is just like the media. Here's the answer. If you are going to take a class where they require you have a camera on you in the house and you don't like that, take the class somewhere else.

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:And to think. . .

[clifyt]

"Won't that day of reckoning come when you show up to your first job and the boss asks you to modify a Java program and you give him a blank stare?"

No, when it get known that universities are putting out students that can't do the job, they are penalized for this.

Students don't sign up for the universities -- they would if they could because they think it is an easy degree, but parents generally pay the bills and they research this stuff.

Beyond this, a lot of post-graduation research goes into assessing a program. How much is the average student making? How quickly do they find jobs? Are they still holding a job in their field at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

The gov't gets involved because they back student loans. Lots of defaults on student loans. If a university has a default rate of say 50% (I'm making up this number), they stop getting loans sent to them. A good friend wanted to go to an experimental psychological program this fall -- only to find that he can't get a loan. Not going to happen.

My day job is in student testing...I get to hear all of this every day...we get all the blame if students are doing poorly, but never any of the credit. I don't like what the law is doing, but it is a start. It is the start of accountability. Beyond that, I really don't think anyone lives anywhere that is all that inconvenient to get to some place that can proctor an exam with the exception of those whom are disabled. Heck, I gave a few exams with a web cam for a student in Iraq this year (I also had a ranking officer present to make certain that what I couldn't see was still legit!)

So lots of reasons for the gov't to get involved. As a tax payer, I hope they are only propping up universities that are churning out students that are qualified...and you should expect the same.

Easily Defeated

[kellyb9]

Start attending online class in your birthday suit, and they'll quickly do away with this restriction.

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. . .

[BunnyClaws]

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.

Bah, speak for yourself. I majored in Anthroplogy with a concentration in Feminist studies. I would comment more on this but I have to get back to waiting tables.

Re:At what cost?

[MightyYar]

So how will all that bandwidth hurt my p2p downloads?

Extra points if your ethics exam is what's killing your download rate.

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!"

Here's how to end it

[fishbowl]

1. Be under 18 years old
2. Perform a sex act on the camera.
3. Compel discovery against the university for possession of child pornography.
4. ???
5. Profit!!!

Re:So, just what was your room number in college?

[fishbowl]

>Everyone and his uncle demands to know my mother's maiden name.

This is culturally insensitive also. It is quite common for one's name and one's mother's maiden name to be the same name.
It's taken for granted as an assumption in the question, that you had married parents, and that your mother changed her name to your father's name, and that your parents gave you your father's name.

Not everybody does that.