>its use in various "ed tech" websites to detect alleged cheating[1] is frightening, to say the least
why is this frightening? proctoring software has long been used and is much more invasive than this, and the alternative is to simply not allow students to use their own devices, or even to take tests remotely - when i was in school the alternative to this sort of software was an exam proctor sitting behind you and watching your every move to make sure you didn't cheat. i get that outside of this sort of context it's bad, but that doesn't make it bad in the contexts where it actually is appropriate.
(In the case of Canvas) This is done surreptitiously without the student's knowledge. As far as I know, there is a separate lockdown proctoring browser which is for actual exams, but then there are some other quizzes which do not require using the locked down browser, but they nevertheless log a bunch of stuff that get sent to the instructor, who often may not know what they actually indicate and proceed to accuse students of cheating.
On your second point about the comparison of human proctor and this:
Lots of things are fine to do on a small scale, but becomes terribly invasive when you do it on a massive scale with the aid of computers. You may accept that the person driving behind you may take a note of your license plate, but would you say the same if someone installed a high resolution webcam on the pedestrian footbridge to see every single car that went through forever? The general issue with computer-assisted surveillance is that it is cheaply scalable and nearly impossible to erase.
Lastly, is there really a point in preventing the use of external information aids (textbooks, notes, Google) in an age where information is so widely available? Rote memorization has never been a good way to truly learn things, and maybe we should do away with this tradition of tests based on information reproduction.
I don't follow why you are so opposed to the visibility api. I agree that it's annoying if used to ensure that I watch a certain video, but besides from that it doesn't seem malicious to me.
>they nevertheless log a bunch of stuff that get sent to the instructor
..what sort of stuff? And how is it related to the visibility api?
> I don't follow why you are so opposed to the visibility api.
It's in the second sentence.
The ability for a website to see when you click on things outside of the page itself (either by changing active window or tab) is quite unexpected from an end-user perspective
> what sort of stuff? And how is it related to the visibility api?
It's in the linked article. At least a few of those events are implemented with the visibility api.
Good question. I've always assumed that when I take an exam online that I'm granting access to BOAT LOADS of PII (mouse movements, IP address, cookies, my video camera, my video camera as I point it around my room)
I've always chalked this up to "of course you need to be vigilant that I'm not cheating", but with the twist that I hold you to a high ethical bar with the data you collect about me.
why is this frightening? proctoring software has long been used and is much more invasive than this, and the alternative is to simply not allow students to use their own devices, or even to take tests remotely - when i was in school the alternative to this sort of software was an exam proctor sitting behind you and watching your every move to make sure you didn't cheat. i get that outside of this sort of context it's bad, but that doesn't make it bad in the contexts where it actually is appropriate.