[ad_1]
A sequence of tweets by one University of Miami scholar that had been critical of a proctoring software program firm have been hidden by Twitter after the corporate filed a copyright takedown discover.
Erik Johnson, a scholar who works as a safety researcher on the facet, posted a prolonged tweet thread in early September about Proctorio, an Arizona-based software program firm that a number of U.S. colleges — together with his personal — use to monitor college students who’re taking their exams remotely.
But six weeks later, Johnson acquired an e-mail from Twitter saying three of these tweets had been faraway from his account in response to a request by Proctorio filed beneath the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Proctoring software program isn’t new, however its utilization has skyrocketed due to the pandemic. More college students than ever are having to take exams and exams from house, and schools and universities are counting on proctoring software program to administer the exams. Students have to set up their college’s selection of proctoring software program, which supplies the examination administrator deep entry to the student’s laptop, usually together with their webcams and microphones, to monitor their exercise to spot potential dishonest.
But college students say that proctoring software program is fraught with issues. Vice reported that college students had complained that the proctoring software program they’d to use couldn’t acknowledge darker pores and skin tones, and others say the software program requires high-speed web, which many low-income homes don’t have.
Falling foul of any of those checks, whether or not identified to the coed or in any other case, might end in failing the take a look at altogether.
Thousands of scholars at colleges in Washington and Florida have already petitioned their colleges to cease utilizing proctoring software program — together with Proctorio — citing privateness and safety dangers.
Proctorio, based mostly in Scottsdale, Ariz., says its proctoring software program is privateness pleasant. Students are required to set up its Chrome extension earlier than taking a take a look at, which the corporate says college students can take away as soon as they’re carried out.
Unlike desktop software program, most Chrome extensions could be simply downloaded and their supply code considered and examined. Johnson did this and tweeted his findings. Three of these tweets described beneath what circumstances Proctorio would “terminate” a student’s examination if it detected indicators of potential dishonest — equivalent to if a scholar “switched networks” or if “abnormal clicking” and “eye movements” had been detected. The tweets additionally included a hyperlink to snippets of code present in Proctorio’s Chrome extension, which Johnson posted to code-sharing web site Pastebin.
Those three tweets are not accessible on Twitter after Proctorio filed its takedown notices. The code shared on Pastebin can be not accessible, neither is a copy of the web page obtainable from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which stated the online tackle had been “excluded.”
A spokesperson for Twitter instructed TechCrunch: “Per our copyright policy, we respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorized representatives.”
Johnson supplied TechCrunch a copy of the takedown discover despatched by Twitter, which recognized Proctorio’s advertising and marketing director John Devoy as the one that requested the takedown on behalf of Proctorio’s chief government Mike Olsen, who’s listed because the copyright proprietor.
Olsen isn’t any stranger to controversy. Earlier this yr he drew ire after posting non-public help chat logs from a scholar, which he later deleted and set his Twitter account to non-public following the incident. Proctorio is additionally suing safety researcher Ian Linkletter, a studying expertise specialist on the University of British Columbia, after tweeting critically of the corporate’s software program.
When reached by cellphone, Olsen claimed that Miami University had accepted the corporate’s phrases and circumstances on behalf of Johnson, and that Johnson allegedly violated these phrases when he tweeted in regards to the code.
Following the decision, Proctorio emailed TechCrunch a assertion by means of its disaster communications agency Edelman, claiming Johnson “violated Proctorio’s exclusive rights by copying and posting extracts from Proctorio’s software code on his Twitter account,” and in response, Proctorio filed the DMCA takedown request “to ask that the content be removed and Twitter removed it.”
“Mr. Johnson’s claim that he has the right to reproduce the code because he was able to download it is simply not true. Regardless of his ability to download the files, they remain protected under the Copyright Act. Also, had Mr. Johnson looked at the files he downloaded, he would have seen the multiple copyright notices in the header of each file that state expressly that the code is owned by Proctorio and that ‘unauthorized reproduction, display, modification, or distribution of this software, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the full extent permitted by law.’ His reproduction of that code violated Proctorio’s rights, which is why Proctorio asked Twitter to remove it,” stated Edelman’s senior vp Andy Lutzky, on behalf of Proctorio.
With assist from the non-profit web rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Johnson stated he has now submitted a counter discover to attraction the takedown.
“This is really a textbook example of fair use,” stated EFF workers lawyer Cara Gagliano. “What Erik did — posting excerpts of Proctorio’s code that showed the software features he was criticizing — is no different from quoting a book in a book review. That it’s code instead of literature doesn’t make the use any less fair.”
“Using DMCA notices to take down critical fair uses like Erik’s is absolutely inappropriate and an abuse of the takedown process,” stated Gagliano. “DMCA notices ought to be lodged solely when a copyright proprietor has a good religion perception that the challenged materials infringes their copyrighted work — which requires the copyright proprietor to contemplate honest use earlier than hitting ship.
“The application of fair use is clear cut here, and this notice never should have been sent,” she stated.
Got a tip? You can attain the writer over Signal and WhatsApp at +1 646-755-8849 or by e-mail: [email protected]
[ad_2]
Source