Remote Proctoring deemed illegal as violation of 4th amendment rights?

[davewill]

I can understand not liking home proctoring and finding it intrusive, but this ruling makes no sense. It's voluntary. The state isn't forcing anyone to enroll at Cleveland State University and take courses that require proctoring. It's a voluntary action taken by the student.

If I invite an officer into my home, he hasn't violated my 4th amendment rights if he takes a look at the family portraits that i hung on the wall (or, for that matter, notices all that crack i might have left on my coffee table)

---

There are state privacy laws that seem to be a much better fit for challenging proctoring practices. But a 4th amendment challenge seems really out there.

Not really. Having to forego the classes you need for your degree (or even just want to take because they are interesting) does not strike me as a true "choice". After all, it's a public college and you shouldn't be "locked out" by something like this.

Your analogy isn't quite right, either. A more correct analogy would be if you had to invite an police officer into your home in order to get a building permit or something. Saying that you don't HAVE to remodel your house if you don't want an officer inside doesn't quite cut it.

The fact that this school applied the requirement so haphazardly makes it difficult to argue that it was a necessary intrusion. I suspect that private enterprises like most of the alternative credit providers won't be affected as they are not state actors. However, since virtually all universities and colleges accept federal funds, they may all end up having to toe this line.

The obvious workarounds for local students are a testing center with in-person proctors, or on-campus testing rooms that can then be "scanned" as they are doing now. I don't really know what truly remote programs are supposed to do.