The American cloud and me
Authors: Emeritus Professor Jim Mienczakowski, AnneMarie Moran, Emeritus Professor Greg Whateley.
In recent years examination invigilation has moved a long way from those traditional, time-honoured, mass gatherings of students in huge examination halls that many of us will only too well remember. And today’s exam invigilation might not be performed by those silent, lurking, academic gowned scrutineers of student malfeasance who, gliding between the rows of exam desks, would peer over the shoulders of the nervous students being tested.
Proctoring online during COVID-19
Some of today’s scrutineers might be remote proctors and AI algorithms watching from afar. That is, if you are being examined online.
When COVID-19 arrived, various university delivery and assessment approaches were ultimately forced into remote, contact-free, arrangements. Some academic disciplines consider exams to be so integral to their discipline’s identity that they could not possibly be replaced with other assessment approaches. Exams had to continue at all costs. Remote proctoring platforms were considered to be the best solution.
Australia’s universities were forced to swiftly adopt whatever online examination proctoring approaches they could find. And Australia’s universities, as they so often do, imitated each other and opted for the exact same service provider that everyone else was using. Ultimately, one American invigilation service came to the fore as the chosen platform for most of our commonwealth institutions. Some alarm bells were rung.
Concerning issues
The issues raised at the time related to student’s being asked to –
Install third party software on their own private computers at home
Provide the proctoring service with personal identification documentation and student identity details use their device’s cameras to show the room they were going to take the exam in to ensure that there were no other people present and no other telecommunication or computer devices available there
Allow the invigilator control of their own laptop or desktop device to search for any suspicious software or apps, etc and
Allow the remote invigilator (who could be based in Manilla, Pune, Hawaii or anywhere in between) to watch them throughout the examination on their own device’s camera – as their device would be in the control of this (remote) person. [Most proctoring services require this access – but non-Australian based services are taking data into non-Australian controlled domains]. It was a solution. And difficult times often require demanding resolutions.
Changing global relations and expectations
Moving forward to today’s changing set of global relations and expectations and online examination invigilation platforms continue to be used – especially where large scale online programs require assessment.
Moreover, just as the DNA service ‘23 And Me’ has run into issues around the ownership of an individual’s data once it is on the cloud, what happens to data drawn from cohorts of Australian examination students who are obliged to give their personal details to a third-party service simply in order to be examined online?
That is to say - your student and personal identity documentation could be on the American Cloud and subject to American IP and regulatory requirements. The Australia-US CLOUD Act Agreement, which came into effect in 2024, has safeguards for human rights and privacy but it also allows access to such data in cases of criminal investigation. But how robust are these new arrangements?
Under the U.S. CLOUD Act, American authorities may compel any U.S.-based company to provide access to data even if the data is stored on Australian soil. This creates an uncomfortable reality: student data collected under Australian privacy laws could be legally accessed by U.S. agencies without the knowledge or consent of your institution or students.
The “America First” agenda scrutinising foreign research links and freezing research funding whilst simultaneously deporting battalions of migrants - irrespective of legal counterclaims - points to an increasing fragility of American law and its interpretation at this moment in time – especially in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion matters.
Australian institutions are bound by the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) — both of which impose strict obligations regarding personal information, particularly around cross-border disclosure (APP 8). Using offshore proctoring providers introduces clear compliance risks.
How safe is our student information and identity documentation?
And Australia’s universities? Can they vouchsafe the student information, identity documentation and other personal information they require to be gathered for remote invigilation purposes? Already aware of these concerns TEQSA recommends that institutions keep Australian student’s data under the control of Australian legislation.
But if ID theft or cloning occurs or student information is ‘on sold’ through the US Cloud to marketing or other companies interested in targeting specific cohorts in Australia – will our universities be legally accountable?
Perhaps, much better to seek proctoring services that keep student data firmly under the local control of Australia’s own Cloud Act?
Emeritus Professor Jim Mienczakowski is a Higher Education Consultant.
AnneMarie Moran is Chief Information Officer at Campus Q (invigilatorPlus).
Emeritus Professor Greg Whateley is currently CEO at AGE & Deputy CEO at AAHE.
