During the pandemic, many schools accelerated their use of online proctoring software such as Proctorio or Honorlock. Proctoring, whether in person or online, has its own challenges, however, the pandemic especially exacerbated the problems with online proctoring software. Even though many schools are back to in-person classes, online proctoring has continued.

And student concerns around it also have progressed. In some instances, students are even suing schools. Enter Aaron Ogletree, who sued Cleveland State University.

Recent Court Ruling Determines That Room Scans Violate Fourth Amendment Rights

In spring 2021, while working from his home, Ogletree was required to scan his bedroom in order to participate in his chemistry test. He refused, stating that his room had confidential tax documents in it. However, in the end, he agreed to the scan, which took less than a minute. The scan was stored with a third-party vendor (although it's unclear which one), such as ProctorU or Proctorio. Some of the scanning services use AI to determine whether or not there is a problem with what is in the room, whereas other services have a human who reviews the room at the time of the scan.

Ogletree sued the university, claiming that they violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure, which are protected by the Fourth Amendment. In August 2022, Judge J Philip Calabrese sided with Ogletree.  At the end of Calabrese's opinion, he states, "Based on consideration of these factors, individually and collectively, the Court concludes that Mr. Ogletree's privacy interest in his home outweighs Cleveland State's interests in scanning his room. Accordingly, the Court determines that Cleveland State's practice of conducting room scans is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

Problems With and Concerns About Online Proctoring Software

Beyond issues of privacy, online proctoring software raises many other concerns for students. AI can be inaccurate in its determination that cheating occurred—and some vendors only offer a human review at a higher price point. Introducing subjectivity is another concern—for example when a professor reviews the footage to make a decision about whether or not behavior counts as cheating. Finally, bias is an issue. Computer programs and algorithms are only as good as the people who write them. This means that bias can be written directly into the program.

Nationwide Attorney-Advisor Who Can Help With Your Online Proctoring Concerns

If you're facing accusations of cheating due to online proctoring software used by your college or university, it's important to find an attorney-advisor with experience in this specialized area. Attorney Joseph D. Lento and the Lento Law Firm have worked with countless families all throughout the country. They can help you navigate the process at your school in order to achieve the best possible results, and they can take matters to court nationwide to seek justice when needed.  Contact the Lento Law Firm today with your questions by calling 888.535.3686 or reaching out online.