The surveillance of students without dead ends in the United States can not be based on cameras

The surveillance of students without dead ends in the United States can not be based on cameras

Remember the fear of being monitored by the head teacher at the back door?

However, for now, this kind of fear is no longer worth mentioning. After all, in the age of technology, the United States has played a sinister trick.
In 2019, the media reported that the United States was accurately tracking hundreds of thousands of students by using short-range cell phone sensors and WiFi networks covering the entire campus. Euphemistically: monitor students' academic performance, analyze their behavior or assess their mental health.

Is surveillance really not illegal?
Managers certainly have good reasons to support surveillance behavior, and the problem is that the voices of opponents are often ignored, intentionally or unintentionally, because the laws of the Beautiful States do not limit such controversial behavior.
As we all know, the United States pays great attention to protecting personal privacy rights. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, citizens are legally entitled to privacy. However, there is also a law in the United States that, under certain conditions, employers can monitor employees, and schools can also monitor whether the privacy of student —— citizens is violated, depending on what the employer is trying to find out is about the employee.
The United States has various pretexts to steal citizens' privacy without any dead ends
In the past two years, many schools in the United States have taken online exams due to the epidemic. Online tests are not unusual, but they are different from the familiar one camera or even a few cameras for 360 degrees. In foreign countries, because opening the camera involves personal privacy, many schools take online exams to send you and submit them within 24 hours.
This exam method undoubtedly gives many students room to cheat, so many companies have developed a series of test monitoring software, such as Proctorio, Respondus and Honorlock, which are widely used for remote testing during the outbreak. The company behind the software claims that it has stopped using often disturbing cheating methods, such as tracking students' head and eye movements and sending "suspicious behavior" alerts to teachers, but that students, parents, and school administrators have expressed a series of complaints about the software: using racist algorithms to detect faces, and having negative effects on students with disabilities and nontypical neural students.
Despite the problems, these remote test monitoring software have made a lot of money in the past two years. Proctorio revealed at a celebration that they have completed many lucrative new deals in the past two years, representing over 20 million exams in 2020, triple the number in 2019, and are now serving more than 1,000 schools and institutions in 170 countries.
Not only that, but the United States continues to step up campus surveillance through the pretext of frequent shootings. A digital system called E-HallPass has recently been widely reported by the media, suggesting that students must request permission to leave the classroom through the system, and that it will also record when they leave the classroom, including going to the bathroom. The system has been spread in at least 1,000 schools across the country.

On August 22, a deleted tweet went viral, and their school was preparing to launch e-HallPass, describing it as " a program where we track when, when, and how often every child goes to the bathroom and store the information on a third-party server run by a private, for-profit company.」
Some people are on the government petition website (Change. The org) petition to remove the "creepy" system from the school.

A dozen similar petitions were found on the site, one about Independent High School, signed nearly 700 times, and appeared to have been written by a group of students.
Sima Zhao's idea of ignoring the rules and breaking the bottom line of "double standards" in the name of "national security", "protection of citizens", "and" protection of human rights " is. It is also a question of how many of these institutions are openly overstepping their authority to steal citizens' personal privacy data, and how many systems they will develop.