July, 08 2021, 04:46pm EDT
19 Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and Youth Advocacy Organizations Demand That School Administrators Stop Using Eproctoring
WASHINGTON
In June, Fight for the Future launched a scorecard detailing which universities plan to continue using harmful eproctoring apps like Proctorio, ProctorU, and Proctortrack, despite outcry from students and human rights organizations. Now, 19 organizations have published a letter calling on school administrators to ban the use of eproctoring.
Fight for the Future and 19 human rights, civil liberties, and youth advocacy organizations have published a letter calling on school administrators to ban eproctoring. The letter details serious concerns about eproctoring, including its invasive data collection, risk for academic harm, inefficacy at preventing academic dishonesty, and the potential to perpetuate racism and ableism. Signatories are calling for a complete ban on eproctoring technology in both university and K-12 settings.
The letter reads in part:
Eproctoring programs are invasive, dangerous, and fail to prevent academic dishonesty. They demonstrate systemic bias against non-white students, are harmful for students with testing anxiety, and discriminate against students with disabilities. They also treat students as if they are guilty until proven innocent, which is a disrespectful and harmful stance for any academic institution to take."
View the full letter and list of signatories at BanEproctoring.com/#Letter
Eproctoring companies exploited educators' panic at the beginning of the pandemic, but many schools are still deciding whether to sign new contracts for the upcoming fall semester. Princeton, MIT, and Stanford are among those that have stated they do not intend to use eproctoring software. The scorecard of where universities stand on the embattled technology, as well as a widget that allows anyone to test whether eproctoring software could detect their face, is available at BanEProctoring.com.
Leaders from the sign on organizations issued the following statements, and are available for comment upon request:
"Eproctoring is spyware, and forcing students to use it is dangerous and unethical. Schools and eproctoring companies claim that students are consenting to the surveillance, but privacy policies are complicated and deceptive, and often students don't actually have a choice about using eproctoring. In order to protect students, school administrators must ban eproctoring." said Erica Darragh, Campaigner and Community Manager at Fight for the Future.
"Eproctoring has a demonstrated track record of being racist, ableist, invasive, and harmful for students' mental health," said Amanda Kloer, Campaigns Director with ParentsTogether, a parent-led organization with 2.5 million members. "Parents have shared horror stories of their children being accused of cheating for minor eye movement, feeling scared showing strangers their bedrooms, and not being able to take tests because of their skin color. E-proctoring software invades student privacy and discriminates against kids, and it has no place in K-12 schools."
Bob Schaeffer, Executive Director at National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), said, "Eproctoring technology is clearly not ready for prime time. Based on complaints FairTest has received from test-takers and teachers, the software often mislabels totally normal behaviors as 'cheating.' The false positive warnings appear to be more common for African American and LatinX students. From both the equity and education quality perspectives, eproctoring products should not be used for administering either K-12 or college exams."
"Eproctoring is an invasive, unaccountable, and discriminatory practice that has no place in an educational environment built on mutual trust and respect. Educators should reject eproctoring and rethink the way students are evaluated in many courses to avoid the use of these toxic surveillance tools," said John Davisson, Senior Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
Sean O'Brien, founder of Yale Privacy Lab, stated: "Eproctoring tech is classroom surveillance, period. Not only is it invasive from a privacy perspective, but it's a nightmare from an accessibility standpoint and inherently biased against people of color. If you care more about student cheating than the success of your students, you're looking for answers to the wrong questions and embracing bad pedagogy."
Tracy Rosenberg, Advocacy Director at Oakland Privacy, said, "Electronic proctoring software that uses facial recognition and/or tracks eye movements and keystrokes during testing processes treats students like criminals, creating anxiety and fear. Inadequacies in the software can have powerfully disparate impacts for numerous reasons, including skin color, exam taking techniques, and student temperament. Students should be focused during examinations on demonstrating what they know about the subject, not on controlling the lights, the direction of their eyeballs, or the speed of their keystrokes to manage imperfect and invasive software. Redirecting test taking from demonstrating subject matter mastery to coping with buggy surveillance software defeats the educational purpose of tests and examinations."
"E-proctoring is harmful, unreliable, and invasive, compounding long-standing practices of school surveillance. As a coalition of student organizers against algorithmic injustice, Encode Justice firmly opposes the use of e-proctoring, which disproportionately penalizes Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ students while creating an atmosphere of fear and anxiety for test-takers," said Sneha Revanur, founder of Encode Justice, a youth-led organization fighting for digital rights.
Sarah Noon, US Federal Policy Liaison at Students for Sensible Drug Policy, stated, "Algorithmic test proctoring software has not been designed to be inclusive of all students and identities. This surveillance technology will lead to more students being wrongfully accused of academic dishonesty, particularly those with disabilities and marginalized groups who already face systemic bias. E-proctoring is invasive and endangers the most vulnerable students. The software would surely exacerbate the disparities culminating in the school-to-prison pipeline. We must trust students, respect their privacy, and refrain from technology that is sure to make mistakes and wrongfully target, invade, and hurt people."
Signers include:
Access Now
Center for Democracy & Technology
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Encode Justice
Fight for the Future
Kairos
Media Alliance
MPower Change
National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest)
National Lawyers Guild
Oakland Privacy
ParentsTogether
PDX Privacy
Restore the Fourth Minnesota
S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
Secure Justice
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
X-Lab
Yale Privacy Lab
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
In Wake of Killing, UnitedHealth CEO Admits 'No One Would Design a System Like the One We Have'
One critic said UnitedHealth Group chief executive Andrew Witty should "resign and then dedicate every dollar he has to dismantling the current system brick by brick and building one based on public health in its stead."
Dec 13, 2024
UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty wrote in a New York Times op-ed Friday that the for-profit U.S. healthcare system "does not work as well as it should" and that "no one would design a system like the one we have," admissions that came as his industry faced a torrent of public anger following the murder of UnitedHealthcare's chief executive.
Witty declared that his firm, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare and the nation's largest private insurer, is "willing to partner with anyone, as we always have—healthcare providers, employers, patients, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and others—to find ways to deliver high-quality care and lower costs."
But critics didn't buy Witty's expressed commitment to reforming an industry that his company has helped shape and profited from massively. Witty was the highest-paid healthcare executive in the U.S. last year, and 40% of the private insurance industry's total profit since the passage of the Affordable Care Act has flowed to UnitedHealth Group.
"It is (barely) true that UnitedHealth didn't design the U.S. system of corporate insurance, which kills tens of thousands of people a year through denial of care," Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams. "But they certainly have perfected it and turned it into a medical murder apparatus at industrial scale. They not only block all attempts to change the system in the direction of public health, they bribe and bully with their billions in blood money to make it even crueler."
"Andrew Witty is the high priest of the temple to Moloch and Mammon, murder and money," Lawson added. "And there is no way for him to wash his hands of it, except perhaps to resign and then dedicate every dollar he has to dismantling the current system brick by brick and building one based on public health in its stead."
"Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance."
While publicly pledging to cooperate with reform efforts, Witty has defended his company's care denials in private and urged his employees not to engage with media outlets in the aftermath of Thompson's murder.
Contrary to Witty's depiction of his company in his Times op-ed, UnitedHealth has historically been an aggressive opponent of reform efforts aimed at mitigating the harms of for-profit insurance and building public alternatives. The Leverreported in 2021 that UnitedHealth Group "held a webinar to pressure its rank-and-file employees to mobilize against efforts in Connecticut to create a state-level public health insurance option."
At the national level, UnitedHealth has spent over $5.8 million this year lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets.
Witty, who was born in a country with a public healthcare system, did not detail the kinds of reforms he would support in his op-ed Friday, but it's clear he would oppose a transition to a single-payer system such as Medicare for All, which would effectively abolish private health insurance and provide coverage to all Americans for free at the point of service—and at a lower total cost than the status quo.
In a column for The Nation on Friday, writer Natalie Shure argued that "the appalling amount of resources and energy we put into maintaining the existence of health insurance is wasted on an industry with no social value whatsoever."
"You could eliminate every one of these corporations tomorrow and build a system without them that works better, for less money, and with less hassle," Shure wrote. "Other countries already have systems like this. Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance."
"None of that means that murder is justified or useful," Shure added. "But anger can be. Some politicians, from Bernie Sanders, to Elizabeth Warren, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have begun to make public statements ascribing the reaction to Brian Thompson's murder to widespread fury over the health insurance industry. The next step is to harness it, and to build something new."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Can't We Fund Universal Public Goods? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire Nepo Babies
"In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta," reads a new report.
Dec 13, 2024
The children of the richest families in the U.S. are well-known for spending their vast wealth on frivolous luxuries—constructing a replica of a medieval church on their acres of property, in the case of banking heir Timothy Mellon, or starting a brand of T-shirts described by one critic as "terrible beyond your wildest imagination," as Wyatt Koch, nephew of Republican megadonors Charles and David, did.
But a report released by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) on Thursday shows how "billionaire nepo babies" don't just waste their families' fortunes. They also benefit from "a rigged system" that allows them to "pass that wealth down over generations without being properly taxed–often without being taxed at all."
In addition, the heirs of the country's biggest fortunes spend vast sums "to elect politicians who protect their unearned wealth and manipulate the country's economy in their favor," said ATF.
Along with Mellon and Koch, the report profiles Samuel Logan of the Scripps media dynasty; Nicola Peltz-Beckham, daughter of billionaire investor Nelson Peltz; Gabrielle Rubenstein, whose family has made its fortune in private equity; and President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump.
The nepo babies are part of a small group of billionaire families in the U.S. who benefit from tax loopholes that ensure little of their immense wealth ever goes to benefit the public good.
At least 90 billionaires have passed away over the last decade, leaving their beneficiaries $455 billion in collective wealth.
But according to ATF, "$255 billion (56%) of that amount was likely entirely exempt from the capital gains tax because of a special break called 'stepped up basis.'"
"Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations."
Without loopholes included the stepped up basis tax cut, the current estate tax on billionaires and centimillionaires would yield enough revenue to fund universal childcare, preschool, and paid family leave for U.S. workers, with hundreds of billions of dollars left over, according to ATF's report.
The wealthy heirs profiled in the report and their families are some of the Republican Party's top donors—contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates including Trump in the hopes of securing even more tax cuts.
Mellon, for example, is Trump's "biggest supporter, giving $140 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 alone," reads the report.
A previous analysis by ATF found that as of late October, just 150 billionaire families had spent $1.9 billion on the 2024 elections.
As the Center for American Progress found earlier this year, Trump's plan to extend the tax cuts that he pushed through in 2017 would cost $4 trillion over the next decade.
"The vast wealth inherited by centuries-old billionaire families is staggering. While these heirs and their billions go undertaxed, enormous sums are squandered on lavish mansions, private jets, and vanity projects instead of funding crucial public investments," said ATF executive director David Kass. "In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta. Now, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations—all while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
The report calls for Congress to pass "proven, pragmatic proposals to unrig the tax system that enjoy high levels of popular support," such as the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act that was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) this year. The bill would tax fortunes between $50 million and $1 billion at 2% and wealth above $1 billion at $1 billion.
The small tax on enormous wealth would generate "a whopping $3 trillion over 10 years," said ATF.
The estate tax could also be "restored so that it can play a meaningful role in promoting fairness and equal opportunities" through the passage of the For the 99.5% Act, which was introduced in 2023 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).
Under the bill, the estate tax exemption would be lowered to $7 million per couple and the current 40% flat rate would be replaced with a sliding scale that would charge higher rates as a family's wealth grows.
"None of these tax reforms would impoverish the ultra wealthy, nor even inconvenience them in any meaningful way–but they would reduce the concentration of wealth that is so corrosive to society," reads the report. "At the same time, they would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to reduce inequality and improve the lives of families that can only dream of the kind of security and opportunity enjoyed by the nation’s richest clans."
"And if rich families ever did need to tighten their belts a bit to pay their taxes," the report continues, "the economizing might begin by reducing the flow of money funding the extravagant lifestyles of America's Billionaire Nepo Babies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Next Recession Starts Here': Trump Team Weighs Abolishing Bank Regulators
The president-elect's advisers are reportedly discussing plans to shrink or eliminate key bank watchdogs, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dec 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers are reportedly considering plans to weaken—or abolish altogether—top bank regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that members of Trump's transition team and the new Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency have asked nominees under consideration to head the FDIC and OCC if the bank watchdogs could be eliminated and have their functions absorbed by the Treasury Department, which is set to be run by a billionaire hedge fund manager and crypto enthusiast.
"Bank executives are optimistic President-elect Donald Trump will ease a host of regulations on capital cushions and consumer protections, as well as scrutiny of consolidation in the industry," the Journal reported. "But FDIC deposit insurance is considered near sacred. Any move that threatened to undermine even the perception of deposit insurance could quickly ripple through banks and in a crisis might compound customer fears."
The Trump team's internal and fluid discussions about the fate of the key bank regulators broadly aligns with Project 2025's proposal to "merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve's non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions."
The FDIC, which is primarily funded by bank insurance premiums, was established during the Great Depression to restore public trust in the nation's banking system, and the agency played a central role in navigating the 2023 bank failures that threatened a systemic crisis.
Observers warned that gutting the FDIC and OCC could catalyze another economic meltdown.
"The next recession starts here," tech journalist Jacob Silverman warned in response to the Journal's reporting.
Eric Rauchway, a historian of the New Deal, wrote that "even Milton Friedman appreciated the FDIC," underscoring the extreme nature of the incoming Trump administration's deregulatory ambitions.
Musk, the world's wealthiest man, is also pushing for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The Journal noted Thursday that "Rep. Andy Barr, a Republican from Kentucky and Trump ally on the House Financial Services Committee, has backed the plan to eliminate or drastically alter the CFPB and said he wants to get rid of what he calls 'one-size-fits-all' regulation for banks."
Barr has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the financial sector and "introduced many pieces of pro-industry legislation, including significant rollbacks of protections stemming from the 2008 financial crisis," according to the watchdog group Accountable.US.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular