Bar Applicants Deserve Better than a Remotely Proctored “Barpocalypse”
This week was the California Bar Exam, a grueling two-day test that determines whether or not a person can practice law in California. Despite the privacy and security risks remote proctoring apps present to users, the California Bar, as well as several other state bars throughout the country, are requiring that students use proctoring and surveillance app ExamSoft to protect the “integrity” of the test. The results have been nothing short of disastrous, and test-takers have taken to calling these remotely proctored exams the “Barpocalypse.”
All of this was avoidable.
Students are reporting significant technical issues, including difficulty installing or downloading the software, failures to upload the exam files, crashes, problems logging into the site, last-minute updates to instructions, and lengthy tech support wait times resulting in students taking the exam hours late (if at all). Additionally, we have heard from numerous examinees who are concerned that their data has been breached, adding to the numerous reports of identity, credit card, and password theft reported by previous users.
All of this was avoidable.
Last month EFF sent a letter to the California Supreme Court, which oversees the California Bar, asking them not to require ExamSoft for the bar exam. Our concerns were threefold: Test takers should not be forced to give their biometric data to the company, which can use it for marketing purposes, share it with third parties, or hand it over to law enforcement, without the ability to opt out and delete this information. Without a clear opt-out procedure, this data collection violates the California Consumer Privacy Act. Additionally, this data collection creates obvious security risks, as the recent data breaches of proctoring apps have shown. And finally, technical issues, as well as requirements that could disadvantage users who cannot meet them, could wreak havoc on users, forcing them to withdraw from the exam. It is unfortunate that several of our concerns have been validated.
Thankfully, the California Supreme Court has heard at least some of these concerns. Shortly after receiving our letter, the Clerk and Executive Officer of the California Supreme Court asked the state bar [pdf] to propose a timetable within 60 days for the deletion of all the 2020 bar applicants’ personally identifiable information collected via ExamSoft:
ExamSoft’s Privacy Policy appears to permit the company to use and disclose applicants’ data for many purposes, some of which appear to be unrelated to the administration of the examination. Thus, the court shares applicants’ concern that any unnecessary retention of their sensitive PII data may increase the risk of unintentional disclosure.
This is a good step forward in protecting applicants’ data, and we are glad to see it. However, it is not enough. After receiving a concerned letter from the deans of several California law schools, the Court replied [pdf], stating that ExamSoft’s proctoring tool would not make any determination about a student’s eligibility, nor would it be used to prevent any applicant from completing their exam:
...the proctoring software will not determine any examinee’s identity, integrity, eligibility, or passing grade, nor will the software be used to prevent any applicant from completing their exam. Instead, multiple layers of human review of the exam videos will permit human proctors to make those determinations.
Unfortunately, that was not the case. At a minimum, the software’s technical issues prevented many students from taking the exam. Additional issues with remote proctoring, from the fear of not knowing what might invalidate an exam to lost time, created stressful experiences for many, many test takers. Some even report being *told* to withdraw due to tech support issues. Additionally, the Court should consider the disproportionate impact these remotely proctored exams have on examinees of color and those with disabilities, as outlined by the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights Task Force and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Court and the state bar must also recognize that the failure of the proctoring software’s facial recognition features created a much more difficult environment for some examinees—such as those with darker skin—who were forced to alter their environment by shining lights on their faces, for example, during the entirety of the test:
Regardless of whether human reviewers are ultimately responsible for determining the integrity of applicants’ test results, it is clear that this remote proctoring experience was not a success. While we applaud the California Supreme Court and the state bar for requiring deletion of biometric data, there are many unanswered questions: we still don’t know how long that data will be held by ExamSoft, which still creates privacy and security concerns; we don’t know whether breaches have already occurred; and we don’t how the California Bar will assist applicants who experienced issues with the exam due to the proctoring software.
The simple truth is that the California Bar and the Supreme Court should not endorse these remotely proctored exams, and should not approve of this dangerous mass data collection, even if the data will be deleted—eventually. The California Supreme Court and the state bar want to have it both ways, admitting that “ExamSoft’s privacy policy appears to permit [pdf] the company to use and disclose applicants’ data for many purposes, some of which appear to be unrelated to the administration of the exam,” and simultaneously writing that “the collection of this data is critically important to ensure the integrity and security of the examination process.”
The only real way to square this circle is to offer all applicants an alternative to the ExamSoft proctored test in the future. We hope the Supreme Court of California will insist on this for February’s test, and we hope other states will take note of this #Barpocalypse, so that future applicants will not be forced to experience these unacceptable levels of privacy, security, and technical issues.
[B] イタリア現代史ミステリー 第一弾「イラリア・アルピの死」(その7)〜チャオ!イタリア通信
【焦点】 コロナで電子図書館の導入加速 100超の自治体が住民サービスで=橋詰雅博
[B] 日本の農作物の輸出は伸びているのか? 輸入はどうか? 〜政府に騙されないためには輸出統計は必ず輸入統計とセットで全貌を見ることが大切
OurPlanet-TV : 外国人の長期収容は国際法違反〜国連が日本政府に見解
米下院民主党報告書、GAFAの事業分割を提言。共和党は同意せず実現性は不透明
すべて読む | アップルセクション | ビジネス | Google | IT | アメリカ合衆国 | Facebook | アップル | 政府 |
関連ストーリー:
DuckDuckGo曰く、Android初回起動時に表示する検索プロバイダーの入札は競争を阻害 2020年10月03日
米議会で大手IT4社のCEOを招いた公聴会が開かれる。市場の独占について5時間以上の議論に 2020年08月01日
EUの欧州委員会、Appleに対し独占禁止法違反の疑いがあるとして本格調査へ。App StoreやApple Payが対象 2020年06月18日
COVID-19治療薬の独占禁止を求める声に対し、中国は自国でワクチンが開発された場合「公共財化」すると述べる 2020年05月21日
AppleのApp Storeルールは、Apple Arcade以外のゲーム配信サービスを許容しない 2020年03月27日
米司法省、AppleのApp Storeに対し調査へ。競合を排除する行為の疑い 2020年02月07日
ビル・ゲイツ曰く、米国での独占禁止法違反訴訟がなければ今頃はみんなWindows Mobile携帯電話を使用していた 2019年11月09日
法務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要-令和2年10月9日(金)
国勢調査のネット回答を20日まで延長へ。回答率が目標に達しないことから
すべて読む | ITセクション | 日本 | 統計 | IT | 政府 |
関連ストーリー:
国勢調査オンライン、地下に住んでいても「B1」と入力できない 2020年09月29日
米国では新型コロナの感染拡大で鬱や不安障害になる人が大きく増加 2020年06月02日
携帯電話の在圏情報を活用した国勢調査がスペイン全土で実施予定 2019年11月01日
日本の人口、初の減少 2016年10月27日
国勢調査、37%の世帯がオンラインで回答 2015年09月23日
マクドナルドのFacebookに寄せられた苦情、バーガーキングが代理で返信する救いの手
すべて読む | ITセクション | 変なモノ | Facebook | 広告 | idle | IT |
関連ストーリー:
バーガーキング、COVIDの世界でのゲストエクスペリエンスを向上させる新しい店舗設計を公開 2020年09月06日
米バーガーキングが寄付メッセージの読み上げ機能を悪用してTwitchで広告キャンペーンを実施、違法との指摘も 2020年08月25日
フロリダ州のバーガーキング、クリスマスモードで激ヤバ2020年に早期お別れ 2020年07月30日
米バーガーキング、メンタルヘルス月間に合わせて「Real Meals」キャンペーンを開始 2019年05月06日
バーガーキングニュージーランド、人種差別的との批判により巨大箸でハンバーガーを食べる広告を中止 2019年04月12日
特定保健用食品の表示許可に係る答申について(10月8日付)
第329回 消費者委員会本会議の会議資料の掲載について【10月8日開催】
[B] 学問・研究の自由を脅かす菅政権の暴挙 日本学術会議推薦の新会員6人の任命を拒否 坂井定雄:龍谷大学名誉教授
Suspicious Sign In prevented for (matsuatbct.noapectv2010@blogger.com)
JVN: Sensormatic Electronics 製 American Dynamics victor Web Client に不適切な認可処理の脆弱性
Chrome Canary、タブストリップのスクロールが可能に
すべて読む | ITセクション | GUI | Chrome | デベロッパー | IT |
関連ストーリー:
Chrome 86 Dev/Canary、アドレスボックスにドメイン名のみを表示するテストを実施 2020年08月15日
Android版Chrome Canary、ダウンロードのスケジュール機能をテスト中 2020年07月23日
デスクトップ版Chrome Canary、限定的ながらWebページのQRコード生成が可能に 2020年04月21日
Mozilla、2021年初めにFirefoxのFTPサポートを削除する計画 2020年03月20日
Google Chromeのタブ機能は改善するか 2018年11月25日