This is about proctoring software. It brings back to mind my #GDPR sniff test.

If you roll out lawyers to punish scrutiny of how your product is designed to interact with kids and our personal space, MASSIVE stench. Transparency is fundamental to informed consent https://twitter.com/ammienoot/status/1301331586558779392

These students recognise WHY it is done, but challenge HOW e.g. extent of privacy invasion, founding premise for design of fundamental distrust, obvious lack of forethought about exceptions and what this does to skew the outcome it is supposed to support. https://twitter.com/Linkletter/status/1300620160445771776?s=20

Requiring each and every person with any degree of accountability for delivery of exams, and every director and VC investor on proctoring software, to sit a proctored online exam before beginning sales and product selection, may be a start.

Maybe more to the point, share their videos like the training videos were shared, as unlisted YouTube links, then see if that feels like adequately minimising and ‘securing’ access to their data?

#EdTech generally is a dumpster fire of fudged design, missing due diligence, functional greed, pseudo science, and data protection / security accidents waiting to happen.

If you argue it is necessarily increased risk taking due to unprecedented times, make governance match..

...mandate inclusion in data protection and security bug bounty schemes...

...unless delegating all due diligence to schools not equipped to do it, is a feature not a bug?

How’s that for ‘innovative’ thinking? Outsource to all the creative scientific minds who will kick tyres anyway, to scrutinise and perhaps come up with a better way.

This is too impactful to become the new normal in a governance vacuum.

P.S. At the top of the thread I link transparency to informed consent. To avoid arguments about appropriate lawful bases, transparency is always fundamental to any data collection, whether use is based consent, contracts, legitimate interests, or public interests

FYI - The fact that intended operation (plus things demanded from students to allow for software deficiencies) is upsetting potential buyers, is NOT a balancing argument for harm to data subjects if forced to blindly accept surveillance and all the associate data processing.

And here is another small dose of personal harm to add https://twitter.com/halhod/status/1311628788225183745?s=20 to the proctoring exception management pile

This is an excellent @doctorow thread on the same, now Proctorio have launched a lawsuit against that researcher for sharing that content. As I said, massive stench. https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1317516650199937025?s=20

And here is the fund for legal fees. #EdTech firms using giant legal sticks to beat down challenge to worst surveillance excesses of their solutions. We can’t let that stand https://www.gofundme.com/f/stand-against-proctorio