Test proctoring room scans violated college student’s privacy, judge rules

Higher Ed Dive

Natalie Schwartz

August 23, 2022

Dive Brief: 

• Cleveland State University violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable government searches and seizures by scanning rooms via online proctoring software before students took exams, a federal judge ruled Monday.

• Aaron Ogletree sued Cleveland State after he had to agree to a camera scan of his bedroom before he could take a remote chemistry exam during the spring 2021 semester.

• Ogletree alleged he wasn’t given enough advance notice about the room scan to arrange for an on-campus test instead, according to his complaint. But even if he were, he argued, the coronavirus pandemic would have prevented him from taking the test in person, forcing him to agree to the room scan to avoid receiving a zero grade.

Dive Insight: 

The lawsuit could have heavy implications for colleges and virtual proctoring companies, which exploded during the pandemic as institutions were forced to hold their exams online. While many colleges enlist these companies to keep their exams secure, vendors have faced accusations that they violate student privacy and use facial recognition technology that has a history of racial bias.

Cleveland State contracts with two online proctoring vendors, Respondus and Honorlock, according to court documents. Each of these tools has prerecorded instructions requiring students taking remote exams to scan their rooms via their webcams, even though Cleveland State doesn’t require or recommend such scans in written policies.

In February 2021, the university notified Ogletree that he would be subject to a room scan during his remote chemistry exam. While he complied, he later sued the university for violating his privacy rights, arguing that ongoing health issues precluded him from opting out of the room scan by attending exams in person.

U.S. District Judge J. Philip Calabrese ruled in Ogletree’s favor, arguing that the home lies at the center of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.

“Though the intrusion in this case was not physical, the same principles protecting the sanctity of the home apply to a visual intrusion conducted through remote technology,” Calabrese said in his ruling.

Continue Reading