I appreciate - and have benefited from - this movement between online and in-person learning spaces.

I'm thinking about the use of generative AI for similar kinds of summaries of key ideas. Given GenAI's costs to people and planet, the tool's embedded questions and prompts feel to me like a better option than relying on a chatbot.

I'm thinking about what this looks like for me when I annotate. I appreciate the ability to use multimodal forms of communication when annotating, such as gifs and memes. Using the visuals is one way that I express my authenticity. What are other ways y'all try to be your authentic selves when using social annotation?

I'm curious if/how these efforts for online, asynchronous learning also affected in-person, synchronous learning.

I'm also thinking about how annotation tools can also recenter and harden authority. And I agree with Jenae Cohn and Remi Kalir that we need socially responsible social reading.

Hi, everybody! My name is Charles Logan, and I'm a PhD candidate in the learning sciences at Northwestern University. I've used social annotation in my personal reading, as a staff member working in higher ed to facilitate professional learning with other staff/faculty, and as a student in grad school. I'm particularly interested in social annotation as an online collective Third Space for developing teacher's knowledge and building counter-narratives (and presented a poster at ISLS 2023 on the subject).

The ad copy suggests a direct appeal to teachers and admin. I wonder what the procurement process is like for these technologies. Who gets to decide whether/how these technologies are purchased/used?

What does effective learning look like to a student surveillance company?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "deploy" means, "to place in battle formation or appropriate positions." I think GoGuardian's word choice reinforces a narrative that the surveillance technology is meant for policing students. It's cop shit.

I wonder if an internal research team's findings can be trusted. What other independent, external safeguards should be in place?

Hi! Welcome to the Civics of Technology #AnnotateEdTech conversation about school surveillance platforms. We’ll be engaging in close, critical reading of the claims made by ed-tech companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, reports, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about school surveillance technologies.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions: * What do you notice? What do you wonder? * What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching? About learning?

You can also use the Baldwin Test for educational technology to guide your annotations: 1. Be as specific as possible about what the technology in question is and how it works. 2. Identify any obstacles to our own understanding of a technology that result from failures of corporate or government transparency. 3. Name the corporations responsible for creating and spreading the technological product. 4. Attribute agency to the human actors building and using the technology, never to the technology itself. 5. Name the technology’s theory (or theories) of learning. 6. Describe the technology’s effects on pedagogy. 7. Highlight the technology’s impacts on the environment.

Thanks for joining us!

I wonder how they determine if it's nuanced.

I'm deeply skeptical of sentimental analysis and the claims people make about it. How do others feel?

I wonder how often Securly's rhetoric uses scare tactics to motivate purchasing.

Hi! Welcome to the Civics of Technology #AnnotateEdTech conversation about school surveillance platforms. We’ll be engaging in close, critical reading of the claims made by ed-tech companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, reports, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about school surveillance technologies.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions: * What do you notice? What do you wonder? * What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching? About learning?

You can also use the Baldwin Test for educational technology to guide your annotations: 1. Be as specific as possible about what the technology in question is and how it works. 2. Identify any obstacles to our own understanding of a technology that result from failures of corporate or government transparency. 3. Name the corporations responsible for creating and spreading the technological product. 4. Attribute agency to the human actors building and using the technology, never to the technology itself. 5. Name the technology’s theory (or theories) of learning. 6. Describe the technology’s effects on pedagogy. 7. Highlight the technology’s impacts on the environment.

Thanks for joining us!

These technologies appear to be strengthening the school-to-prison pipeline. For more on how digital surveillance is weaponized against youth - particularly youth from nondominant groups - read this report by Jennifer Jones and Ana Nájera Mendoza: Policing Students Online: The Increasing Threat of School-Sanctioned Digital Surveillance

Hi! Welcome to the Civics of Technology #AnnotateEdTech conversation about school surveillance platforms. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, reports, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about school surveillance technologies.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions: * What do you notice? What do you wonder? * What narratives does the report tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching? About learning?

Thanks for joining us!

The recent episode of the podcast In Machines We Trust titled "Can AI keep guns out of schools?" raises a lot of problems with this software.

I find this whole quote fascinating as it's spinning a lot of narratives at once about the company's so-called unique, cutting-edge technology and the emphasis on immediacy. How are context/nuance and immediacy at odds?

Oh, I thought you were going to say by making every effort to ensure assault weapons were banned. Silly me!

Hi! Welcome to the Civics of Technology #AnnotateEdTech conversation about school surveillance platforms. We’ll be engaging in close, critical reading of the claims made by ed-tech companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, reports, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about school surveillance technologies.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions: * What do you notice? What do you wonder? * What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching? About learning?

You can also use the Baldwin Test for educational technology to guide your annotations: 1. Be as specific as possible about what the technology in question is and how it works. 2. Identify any obstacles to our own understanding of a technology that result from failures of corporate or government transparency. 3. Name the corporations responsible for creating and spreading the technological product. 4. Attribute agency to the human actors building and using the technology, never to the technology itself. 5. Name the technology’s theory (or theories) of learning. 6. Describe the technology’s effects on pedagogy. 7. Highlight the technology’s impacts on the environment.

Thanks for joining us!

I notice youth were not part of the conversation.

Yes, exactly my point in the previous annotation.

Raising the Baldwin Test for ed-tech and the concern about tech's impacts on the environment, I wonder about the amount of natural resources required to maintain and produced by this enormous surveillance system.

Hi! Welcome to the Civics of Technology #AnnotateEdTech conversation about school surveillance platforms. We’ll be engaging in close, critical reading of the claims made by ed-tech companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, reports, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about school surveillance technologies.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions: * What do you notice? What do you wonder? * What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching? About learning?

You can also use the Baldwin Test for educational technology to guide your annotations: 1. Be as specific as possible about what the technology in question is and how it works. 2. Identify any obstacles to our own understanding of a technology that result from failures of corporate or government transparency. 3. Name the corporations responsible for creating and spreading the technological product. 4. Attribute agency to the human actors building and using the technology, never to the technology itself. 5. Name the technology’s theory (or theories) of learning. 6. Describe the technology’s effects on pedagogy. 7. Highlight the technology’s impacts on the environment.

Thanks for joining us!

Hi! Welcome to the Civics of Technology #AnnotateEdTech conversation about school surveillance platforms. We’ll be engaging in close, critical reading of the claims made by ed-tech companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, reports, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about school surveillance technologies.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions: * What do you notice? What do you wonder? * What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching? About learning?

You can also use the Baldwin Test for educational technology to guide your annotations: 1. Be as specific as possible about what the technology in question is and how it works. 2. Identify any obstacles to our own understanding of a technology that result from failures of corporate or government transparency. 3. Name the corporations responsible for creating and spreading the technological product. 4. Attribute agency to the human actors building and using the technology, never to the technology itself. 5. Name the technology’s theory (or theories) of learning. 6. Describe the technology’s effects on pedagogy. 7. Highlight the technology’s impacts on the environment.

Thanks for joining us!

If there are always "new threats," then schools and other institutions must continue to pay for these services.

Raises the scepter of nature, as if this very much human-made technology is somehow capable of independence.

Using the Baldwin Test, I want to know what the company means by "learning". For example, does "learning" really mean people are just annotating more training data to "improve" the algorithm's intended results? And who are these people doing the annotating?

What kinds?

Reminds me of a common trope in technology: frictionless user experience. But for whom are these technologies very much a rough experience?

The company is framing its platform using a metaphor of human anatomy. Why might this language be problematic?

Annotate Evolv's claims about its product using the Baldwin Test and its four commitments plus three (or more) educational technology-specific elements.

The Baldwin Test:

1) Be as specific as possible about what the technology in question is and how it works.

2) Identify any obstacles to our own understanding of a technology that result from failures of corporate or government transparency.

3) Name the corporations responsible for creating and spreading the technological product.

4) Attribute agency to the human actors building and using the technology, never to the technology itself.

Three possible educational technology-specific elements:

5) Name the technology’s theory (or theories) of learning.

6) Describe the technology’s effects on pedagogy.

7) Highlight the technology’s impacts on the environment.

That's some ed-tech imaginary rhetoric there.

This feels like a false sense of agency.

Google uses teachers/classrooms as free subjects/lab

Original vision of Google Classroom

How much of this vision of teachers and teaching narrows what it means to be a teacher? To teach? And to learn?

Oh, just those pesky rules!

This whole ecosystem isn't great.

YES

Ah: surveillance and control were features from the start.

Ugh, these tactics feel so exploitative to me.

Curious to see how individuals leverage the brand, and how these practices occurred with the rise of edupreneurs/eduinfluencers.

Still a problem five years later

I'm seeing theme around collaboration and connectivity emerge, and I'm wondering: to what ends?

But what is the pedagogy encoded into the platform?

Teachers as a means to an end.

True of teachers too, as they learn the suite of tools.

Bingo.

This feels like a pedagogical challenge for a teacher, not an answer to be shifted to a tech company's search engine.

I see this tactic in other edtech, such as Top Hat.

Which raises a question, "Should We Use Google in Schools?"

I'm wondering about the implicit technodeterminism assumed by the student. No knock on her, obviously, but it's interesting to me how Google's digital technology is framed here as the preferred outcome (perhaps pinnacle?) of human invention.

I'm thinking about Autumm's point about the ways companies find loopholes around institutional policies by going directly to teachers.

Evidence?

How is "power" being conceived here? Because for me, online proctoring reinforces asymetric power relationships in which students, particularly students from historically marginalized communities, are punished/policed more.

When might we want our seams to be showing? What's a learning experience like when it's been smoothed down and down?

What is the company's definition of "active" learning? How are they selling a specific vision of active learning?

Hello! Welcome to an #AnnotateEdTech conversation. During our open and ongoing conversations, we’ll engage in close, critical reading of the claims made by educational technology companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can act as counternarratives and living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions:

• What do you notice? What do you wonder?
• What narratives do the companies tell about education? About being a student? A teacher?
• What assumptions do the companies make about students and teachers? About learning and teaching?
• What claims do the companies make about their technology? What evidence exists to support or oppose those claims?

Thank you for joining the conversation!

Where does the data used to train the machine learning come from, then?

Is now the right time to discuss your data breach?

Glad that's cleared up...except there's plenty of evidence facial recognition is biased.

"'Overall, [ProctorU] added more stress than it needed to, because it was intimidating to have something watching you the whole time; it’s very anxiety-inducing,' Abrevaya said. 'I would say because of that my focus was interrupted, so my test performance probably wasn’t as good as it could have been because half my attention also was questioning whether or not the Wi-Fi would go out, and I wouldn’t be able to leave the room to fix it.'"

But do students (and others) even know to ask about facial recognition?

Where are these numbers from? What was the sample size? And what of the many students who've signed petitions to ban ProctorU and other proctoring companies?

Good thing institutions and experts are always ethical. Have the policies been approved by students? Because people have thoughts and questions about your public relations-friendly Students Bill of Rights.

This strikes me as an odd way to say "school" or "institution of higher education." I keep coming back to how damaging online proctoring is to students and their learning, and by emphasizing the "learning" in their answer, I feel as if ProctorU is attempting to further the bogus narrative that their technology and business model aids students' learning rather than harms it.

Doubling down on the surveillance, I see.

There's a proctoring floor?!?

What happens to this data?

That three uses of "ensures" in the span of two paragraphs. Me thinks ProctorU isn't so sure about its ability to ensure.

Do students need to be watched by a stranger in order to realize the benefits of remote learning?

Based on what evidence? And what disabilities?

Pushing that narrative about helping students achieve when in fact surveillance actively impedes their success.

The onus again is placed on the student to prove the materials are in fact allowed.

How? Do they ask? Do they require a person to disclose their disability to a stranger to prove they're trustworthy?

Do they read, say, Ruha Benjamin's Race After Technology as part of their training?

That solves the problem!

I see you've decided to not answer the question, ProctorU, but retreat to the refrain of placing all our trust in your magical unbiased human beings.

But then that industry-standard tech is surveillance...the standard is not a metric to praise.

This is impossible.

I'm imagining a scenario where a student has to explain the notes on a piece of paper (or, increasingly, notes in an electronic document) are in fact permitted. How does having to prove yourself to be honest affect a student's ability to focus? What happens to their anxiety levels at the very outset of an exam?

If it's so simple, why need a human proctor at all?

But a determination is made by the technology, and that determination defaults to suspicious. The student has to prove they weren't cheating, again reinforcing they're adversaries to be policed.

Is the suggestion, then, that these "software tools" use non-human judgement? Because humans developed the tools and encoded their biases into them. Also, "software tools" is a tidy euphemism for surveillance tools.

Yikes. I read the use of "trait" here as assigning a person a fixed identity - one of dishonesty - which reinforces the technology's built-in assumptions about students as adversaries to be caught and punished.

Such as?

I'm not sure students would agree with this characterization.

I've been reflecting on the senators' questions, and one very important missed opportunity is asking the companies to describe what they believe to be the impact their technology, and in this case live proctors, has on students' attention and other things, like their emotional/psychology state.

Our academic surveillance is really in the best interests of students, we swear!

Proctorio also describes their employees as "agents." What does this decision suggest about how they view their work - and how they view students?

Another common theme from online proctoring companies: we don't decide if a student chated...we just watch them for any indication that they might've.

Such as not being surveilled?

Can ProctorU prevent digital redlining and its ongoing impacts?

And what of ensuring a student's psychological and emotional well-being?

The article ProctorU refers to focuses on a single case at Texas A&M. Now seems like a good time to consider alternatives to assessments that might lead a teacher to use ProctorU. See, for example, the show notes from this Tea for Teaching podcast episode on remote proctoring for more on moving away - far away! - from assessments that lend themselves to online proctoring.

Ah yes! Here we go again with "integrity," a word that appears eight times in the letter.

Access to higher education does not and should not depend on online proctoring. Again and again these companies construct a narrative focused on their role in expanding education. The institutions - not the companies - create and sustain these programs.

This business jargon exposes ProctorU's lack of care for students.

Harmful academic surveillance is an odd way to support students.

Whose need?

These online proctoring companies repeatedly push their surveillance by claiming it improves equity.

Your track record is...not good.

I think students should assist in creating these policies.

What of practices that affect students' well-being?

Read the senators' letter.

Is it interest - or is it deep concern for students?

Visit the Against Online Proctoring library for an open, growing collection of journalism; peer-reviewed articles; examples of student, staff, and teacher resistance; and various blog posts and Twitter threads addressing online proctoring.

According to the authors of Facial Recognition Technologies: A Primer, "Face recognition is a biometric technology."

Does the customer include students in this usage?

That's one way to think about it. Or you might say the student had no other choice but to be watched by a group of Proctorio staff just to a test using their harmful tech.

Also known as the "But I Have Black Friends" defense.

Yeah, but do students even know to ask about race and gender expression in these cases? You can't complain about what you don't know about, so a seemingly generic complaint about the tech not working could very well be because the tech is racist and its racism is obscured by the way the tech is framed as objective.

Like these students?

I'm thinking again of the student who, after this harmful technology fails to recognize their face, must somehow prove to a total stranger they are who they say they are - and then take a test. The technology, the pedagogy: it's demeaning through and through.

Is this the same social media account that immediately inserted itself into any negative comment about Proctorio on Twitter that ultimately led Mike Olsen telling a scholar she should "include both sides" in an upcoming keynote - and then Mike deleted all the tweets? That one?

Proctorio is not good at accepting complaints or criticism.

Or asking for a snack or, or, or...

Like a pet or a child or a roommate who enters the room and turns an otherwise innocuous glance into suspicious behavior.

One example of their ableist technology.

And yet: Proctorio has repeatedly stated it uses facial recognition technology, and when Ian Linkletter caught their deceptiveness, Proctorio deleted the tweet stating they use facial recognition technology. Elsewhere, a company they partner with - McGraw-Hill - states Proctorio uses facial recognition. Then there's Proctorio's contract with California State University, in which they refer to their facial recognition technology on five occasions, including, "Proctorio implements its facial recognition technology in a way that is more functional toward the proctoring process." But please, tell the senators you don't use facial recognition technology.

Who does "stakeholder" refer to?

Then why are you suing someone for helping people understand how your technology discriminates?

What about the "flaw in Proctorio's 'zero knowledge' end-to-end encryption"?

Hard disagree.

Unless the company's CEO posts a portion of a student's chat log to Reddit.

More of this, please!

And in these sessions, do you explore the underlying pedagogy of your carceral technology? Rhetorical question, I know.

Is one these best practices suing a person when he shared unlisted YouTube video links about your academic surveillance technology?

Academic surveillance can never be supportive. Academic surveillance can never be comfortable.

Ian Linkletter noted Proctorio changed its terms of service from explicitly stating institutions could not mandate students use Proctorio to stating institutions should use Proctorio in an ethical manner. The move aligns with their broader strategy of creating an unethical technology and then blaming institutions when they use that technology in ways students and others find harmful. Righteous indignation as PR strategy.

I have read many student statements that contradict this assertion.

The process you just described does not sound easy.

How does any of this improve equity?

So far I count customers referring to teachers, students, and now institutions/admin at institutions.

Again, Proctorio positioning itself as a beacon of inclusivity.

And I look forward to reading those findings!

I'm glad the exams feel protected. Have you spoken to the student with actual emotions?

What about awareness regarding how the technology flags disability as suspicious?

Can't escape the militarism of this invasive technology.

What about speaking with students? How does talking with only employees improve the ethical use of an unethical technology, which, to be clear, can't be made more ethical?

The answer: all of them. Now please pay me lots of $$$ for my incredible consulting.

Ah, so the student is forced to disclose their disability to their teacher to prove they're being honest. Much better. :(

How would this work? So a student has to share their disability with a stranger to prove they're not cheating? As Chris Gilliard likes to say, throw this garbage into the sun.

But accuracy really isn't the issue. By automatically producing a suspicion level score for every student based on normative definitions of acceptable behavior, Proctorio shows itself to be ableist. The exam's outcome should not be a cover for the student's experience of being labeled abnormal, a label they then have to disprove to a teacher because the so-called objective proctoring tech flagged their behavior.

And what, pray tell, do you intend to do with these recommendations?

Are these the same opaque algorithms you referred to earlier?

Will this information be made public?

Ah yes, the well-known story of a group of people working together in order to accomplish a goal definitely not out of hubris. I too read the Tower of Babel like this.

I know y'all have read the many articles published about the very real evidence that your tech presents several harmful issues because Mike Olsen declared that these damning articles only bolster sales.

We, who are in a position of power, have not heard from institutions and their leaders, who are also in a position of power, that our technology harms anyone who doesn't occupy the same position of power we and institutional administators enjoy; therefore, we're doing great!

But what about students???

Imagine being a student who's studied for hours (or not, it doesn't matter) and you sit down to take an exam and three times in a row the technology you've been forced to use tell you it cannot detect your face and then you have to prove to some stranger you are in fact you only to have to prove you are in fact you before you start a test. This is a pedagogy of distrust and it's awful.

Student: Hello, yes, am I speaking to one of Proctorio's famous expert proctors?

Expert proctor: You're in luck, bro, because, as you clearly already know, I am an expert proctor, having completed a five-week training in the art of proctoring.

Student: Whew! Ok, expert proctor, can you tell me why your surveillance technology isn't detecting my face?

Expert proctor: Are you a white person?

Student: No.

Expert proctor: Oh, ugh, ok...let me check my expert proctoring manual...hold on...

Student: I only have twenty more minutes to finish my exam.

Expert proctor: Be cool, bro. Seriously. Because Mike? He might post this chat to Reddit and neither of us want that.

Student: Mike?

Expert proctor: Nevermind. Have you tried shining a lamp directly into your face? Like a really bright lamp? Or several flashlights? Or do you own a torch? I can walk you through how to make one. How much kerosene do you have?

Student: Your tech is just racist, isn't it?

Expert proctor: Let me check my expert proctoring manual...one sec...ah! No, our technology is definitely 100% not racist. Can I help you with anything else? Hello? Hello?

Aside: I noticed Proctorio is no longer in the Chrome web store. I wonder if it's because they consistently received scathing reviews from students? (I have receipts, BTW.)

Perhaps these features shouldn't operate since they're discriminatory?

Yeeeeahhh...but your software does attempt to quantify suspicion levels and produce a suspicion score, so sure, you don't ultimately decide whether or not that precious exam integrity has been breached, but you sell your surveillance tech as an objective means for doing just that.

So generous!

Now seems like a good time to consider alternatives to assessments that might lead a teacher to use Proctorio. See, for example, the show notes from this Tea for Teaching podcast episode on remote proctoring for more on moving away - far away! - from assessments that lend themselves to online proctoring.

Is it? What datasets have been used to reinscribe the normative behaviors that constitute actions that don't get flagged?

Mmmhhhmmmmm...

What are the qualifications to be an expert proctor? What does expert proctoring look like?

And what of the effects of this neighborly act upon a student?

How friendly!

More confusion about how "customer" is being used.

Are these live proctors also mythical objective, unbiased humans?

And I'm pretty sure this same feature is one Proctorio sought to "disrupt" before adopting it.

I think you mean "tentacle."

As Shea Swauger noted in his Twitter thread responding to this letter, verifying identity in this way can out trans people.

Based on what evidence?

Good thing children are notoriously quiet! Or if you're using public wifi, people in the coffee shop will respect your need for silence.

The technology's racism means that dark-skinned students may need a lot of suitable lighting.

Ah yes, because when I'm taking an exam, I do my best when I have to show my room throughout the exam. Read more on the science of learning versus proctoring software.

Like going to the bathroom? Like helping a family member?

Again, this default is ableist.

Note Proctorio uses "product" here. And how is the product trained? And what is "product" hiding?

What's with the insistence on "raw"?

I'm confused as to how Proctorio is using "customer." Are students the customer? Because I'm not sure too many students will agree to that description, nor would they choose this invasive tech if given the option to say, "No."

Data isn't raw if it's being flagged; it's cooked, if you will, by the algorithms.

Like their children? Or a roommate? Because if that's the case, then students are, by default, designed to be suspicious by Proctorio.

Again, Proctorio wiping its hands of any responsibility.

So much to unpack in this statement. Note, for example, the tell of their defensive tone. Proctorio would like the senators to believe data are objective; they are not. Proctorio would like the senators to believe humans are unbiased; they are not. The senators and their staff might like to read the Snooping Where We Sleep report from the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project for more.

A few things. One, students are not customers. And two, Proctorio clearly wants the senators to understand they are not to blame for how their harmful technology is used. We just make this stuff, they're literally boldly saying, and responsibility for our terrible tech rests solely on teachers and administrators. Teachers, admin, and staff do bear responsibility, but responsibility for the harm done to students begins with Proctorio (yes, Proctorio).

I wonder if students feel like partners...

Your neoliberalism is showing.

Proctorio does not like the analog world.

So Proctorio isn't intrusive?

As Shea Swauger noted in his Twitter thread...yuck.