5 ms·

> The expense isn't justified for 10 students, since this may well be the only year that course is offered online. So instead you'd rather waste money on a bar

> The expense isn't justified for 10 students, since this may well be the only year that course is offered online. So instead you'd rather waste money on a barely-functional piece of software that actively invades your students' privacy?

mkl 5y ago
It seems to function just fine (I'm not talking about Proctorio), and it doesn't invade privacy any more than the Zoom-based tutorials, which is barely at all. It is also better than any other alternative I know of, many of which have been tried already and found wanting. Privacy is not a god to whom all things must be sacrificed. All education involves losing a little privacy (in person people will know what you look like, where you're from, and many other things that are hidden for remote students; really they have more privacy than any others), and the fact that software is involved doesn't suddenly make things worse.
- moistbar 5y ago
  >the fact that software is involved doesn't suddenly make things worse. When that software is required to be installed on private machines and is difficult to remove, yes, it absolutely does make things worse.
  - mkl 5y ago
    The software we use is easy to remove, and students have a lot of software installed on their private machines already, some of it more invasive in software terms (e.g. games with anti-cheating features). I have more qualms about the software and the privacy implications than the students do, and I'm resigned to it for now; the students just went ahead and installed it without comment.
    - moistbar 5y ago
      Right, but that software was their choice to install, not forced upon them by their academic institution. It's good that it's easy to remove, but other people's computers are not your property.
    - oxylibrium 5y ago
      There's two problems with this statement. First is the assumption that students don't care about privacy, second is the lack of discussion about consent. I'm a student who takes special care about the software I install on my laptop. I use a Linux distro, run primarily open-source software, and sandbox every single proprietary app (limited access to files, no admin at all, no screen recording, disabled webcam, ...). I've also looked into several of these exam spyware tools (you really are forcing students to install spyware), and they're built with often hilariously poor security practices. Which is to say nothing of the regularly stolen source code; If you held the exam spyware solutions to the same standards that you held students to, you would write up almost every single vendor to the Academic Integrity office. Another example of hypocrisy in academia from the perspective of a disgruntled student. I deliberately do not install any video games with invasive anti-cheating functionality (and I regularly critique them, like I do for exam spyware); that is a false equivalence anyway, since they don't deal in the same breadth of personally identifiable information (like a permanently saved panorama of my bedroom). Don't assume all students are the same. Second, the consent dynamics are wildly different. For a game, its like "you trade this in for fun/relaxation" - and there's always other games that don't spy on you. I play those. With universities, many pulled a fast one and introduced the spyware to students after their tuition is already paid, and said "use it or drop the course". You can't switch universities because one university didn't consider the ethics of spyware; you can switch games much more easily.

mkl 5y ago

It seems to function just fine (I'm not talking about Proctorio), and it doesn't invade privacy any more than the Zoom-based tutorials, which is barely at all. It is also better than any other alternative I know of, many of which have been tried already and found wanting. Privacy is not a god to whom all things must be sacrificed. All education involves losing a little privacy (in person people will know what you look like, where you're from, and many other things that are hidden for remote students; really they have more privacy than any others), and the fact that software is involved doesn't suddenly make things worse.

moistbar 5y ago
>the fact that software is involved doesn't suddenly make things worse. When that software is required to be installed on private machines and is difficult to remove, yes, it absolutely does make things worse.
- mkl 5y ago
  The software we use is easy to remove, and students have a lot of software installed on their private machines already, some of it more invasive in software terms (e.g. games with anti-cheating features). I have more qualms about the software and the privacy implications than the students do, and I'm resigned to it for now; the students just went ahead and installed it without comment.
  - moistbar 5y ago
    Right, but that software was their choice to install, not forced upon them by their academic institution. It's good that it's easy to remove, but other people's computers are not your property.
  - oxylibrium 5y ago
    There's two problems with this statement. First is the assumption that students don't care about privacy, second is the lack of discussion about consent. I'm a student who takes special care about the software I install on my laptop. I use a Linux distro, run primarily open-source software, and sandbox every single proprietary app (limited access to files, no admin at all, no screen recording, disabled webcam, ...). I've also looked into several of these exam spyware tools (you really are forcing students to install spyware), and they're built with often hilariously poor security practices. Which is to say nothing of the regularly stolen source code; If you held the exam spyware solutions to the same standards that you held students to, you would write up almost every single vendor to the Academic Integrity office. Another example of hypocrisy in academia from the perspective of a disgruntled student. I deliberately do not install any video games with invasive anti-cheating functionality (and I regularly critique them, like I do for exam spyware); that is a false equivalence anyway, since they don't deal in the same breadth of personally identifiable information (like a permanently saved panorama of my bedroom). Don't assume all students are the same. Second, the consent dynamics are wildly different. For a game, its like "you trade this in for fun/relaxation" - and there's always other games that don't spy on you. I play those. With universities, many pulled a fast one and introduced the spyware to students after their tuition is already paid, and said "use it or drop the course". You can't switch universities because one university didn't consider the ethics of spyware; you can switch games much more easily.