Universities' AI Proctoring Tools Allegedly Failed Canada's Legal Threshold for Consent

March 9, 2020

AI proctoring tools for online exams at Canadian universities have sparked debate over compliance with individual consent regulations during the pandemic, raising concerns about responsible and trustworthy AI practices. These tools, collecting biometric data, were reportedly deemed 'not conducive' to meeting the legal threshold for informed consent.

For those interested in shaping the future of safe and secure AI practices, join HISPI Project Cerebellum to Govern, Map, Measure, or Manage such incidents through our AI incident database. JOIN US.

Matched TAIM controls

Suggested mapping from embedding similarity (not a formal assessment). Browse all TAIM controls

MEASURE 2.6 — similarity 0.692, rank 1. TAIM detail and related incidents →
MAP 4.1 — similarity 0.683, rank 2. TAIM detail and related incidents →
MAP 1.6 — similarity 0.674, rank 3. TAIM detail and related incidents →

Alleged deployer: canadian-universities
Alleged developer: respondus-monitor, proctoru, proctortrack, proctorio, proctorexam, examity
Alleged harmed parties: canadian-students

Source

Data from the AI Incident Database (AIID). Cite this incident: https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/424

Data source

Incident data is from the AI Incident Database (AIID).

When citing the database as a whole, please use:

McGregor, S. (2021) Preventing Repeated Real World AI Failures by Cataloging Incidents: The AI Incident Database. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-21). Virtual Conference.

Pre-print on arXiv · Database snapshots & citation guide

We use weekly snapshots of the AIID for stable reference. For the official suggested citation of a specific incident, use the “Cite this incident” link on each incident page.