Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Since when did Big Brother take over American colleges?

Big Brother is watching through an American flag
Moor Studio/Getty Images

Daniel O. Jamison is a retired attorney.

In his classic novel “1984,” George Orwell described a frightening dystopian future where individual freedom is lost as technology enables “Big Brother” to watch, monitor and direct everyone. Big Brother has now come to American colleges and universities.

College students often must log into course management programs to take classes. These systems gather information for the professor on how much time is spent looking at readings and whether course messages have been checked. Professors can insist that students read course books online, which allows the professor to check if pages were actually read, when they were read and how much time was spent on each page.

Professors can monitor how long one takes to complete an assignment and quizzes. Website visits, keystrokes, link clicks, and mouse movements are recorded. Professors can insist on activating one’s camera so that test-taking can be proctored through facial recognition. Never mind that algorithms can flag certain innocent movements of the test-taker as suspicious or not allow a Black person’s face to register.


Card swipes allow tracking of one’s use of the library. Then there are the cameras in the parking areas that pick up not only your license plate to see if you have a parking pass but also see who you are riding with and what you are carrying when you leave the car. Better hide what you don’t want Big Brother to see. If you have not been to the food commons for several days, someone may give you the creeps by showing up at your dorm room to check on you.

At least one presumably can still avoid taking a course that requires reading “War and Peace” in two weeks. Course papers used to often be written in late- or all-night cram sessions. One learned how well they can perform under pressure.

Now one presumably could be flagged as a potential miscreant who – instead of spending days cooped up writing a paper – socializes, plays intramural sports, watches sports, sees and attends what else is happening on campus or in the area, and learns the ways and ideas of fellow students.

Early diversity programs of the 1970s allowed students of diverse races, ethnicities, and backgrounds to learn about and from each other. There is and was immense value in bringing together people who would otherwise have little or no contact so that they might get to know and appreciate one another.

This is not to say that students should neglect their studies, but how can learning take place if they are so worried about being tracked? They may become hermits and lose the forest for the trees amid mind-numbing constant studying. Big Brother’s fear-inducing monitoring would appear to make it harder for people to get to know one another. A college education should include learning through in-person social interaction and working together to rise above anger against one another or retreating to “safe spaces.”

This massive data collection is very disturbing beyond the world of academia. What data has been gathered from visits to health websites? Artificial intelligence presumably can overcome the sheer volume of data to drill down on someone. Autonomy is lost. Adolf Hitler would have been delighted with the assistance of all of this data to rid Nazi Germany of those viewed as “vermin,” not pure of blood or race, or otherwise undesirable. Don’t think it can’t happen here.

The root of the problem is the massive and willy-nilly unwarranted collection of all of this data in the first place. According to Tara Garcia Mathewson, a University of California, San Diego chief privacy officer has stated: “We haven’t had regulator scrutiny, to a great extent, on our privacy practices or our data practices, so our data really do live all over the place, and no one quite knows who has what.”

Except for some broader protections for the disabled and personal health information, federal law and regulations appear for the most part not to address the root problem.

The definition of “education records” in federal post-secondary student privacy law and regulations appears to include much of this massive data, but the regulations do not address the unnecessary massive collection of data in the first place. They appear to address only such topics as who can access “education records” without a student’s consent, a student’s right to see and seek to amend the records (the school is not required to make the amendment), a student’s right to file a complaint with the Department of Education, and the school’s obligation to notify students of these rights.

“Transparency” is no solution. It only lets you know what Big Brother has on you. Big Brother already has the data and can use it, plus hacking is always a concern. One can ask professors to accept typed work outside these systems, but the school or professors may not allow it. It is otherwise apparently a practical impossibility to entirely avoid being monitored.

Government may not have addressed the root of the problem, but schools can on their own. Higher education should drop the coursework management systems and limit electronic school communication to emails. Our troubled times seem to require surveillance cameras and key card entry systems, but they should be narrowly tailored to documented needs.

These changes made, “1984” should be required reading for students and administrators.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy
a cup of coffee and a pair of glasses on a newspaper
Photo by Ashni on Unsplash

Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy

The United States is living through a moment of profound democratic vulnerability. I believe the Trump administration has worked in ways that weaken trust in our institutions, including one of democracy’s most essential pillars: a free and independent press. In my view, these are not abstract risks but deliberate attempts to discredit truth-telling. That is why, now more than ever, I think journalists must recommit themselves to their core duty of telling the truth, holding power to account, and giving voice to the people.

As journalists, I believe we do not exist to serve those in office. Our loyalty should be to the public, to the people who trust us with their stories, not to officials who often seek to mold the press to favor their agenda. To me, abandoning that principle would be to betray not just our profession but democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fighting the Liar’s Dividend: A Toolkit for Truth in the Digital Age

In 2023, the RAND Corporation released a study on a phenomenon known as "Truth Decay," where facts become blurred with opinion and spin. But now, people are beginning to doubt everything, including authentic material.

Getty Images, VioletaStoimenova

Fighting the Liar’s Dividend: A Toolkit for Truth in the Digital Age

The Stakes: When Nothing Can Be Trusted

Two weeks before the 2024 election, a fake robocall mimicking President Biden's voice urged voters to skip the New Hampshire primary. According to AP News, it was an instance of AI-enabled election interference. Within hours, thousands had shared it. Each fake like this erodes confidence in the very possibility of knowing what is real.

The RAND Corporation refers to this phenomenon as "Truth Decay," where facts become blurred with opinion and spin. Its 2023 research warns that Truth Decay threatens U.S. national security by weakening military readiness and eroding credibility with allies. But the deeper crisis isn't that people believe every fake—it's that they doubt everything, including authentic material.

Keep ReadingShow less
From TikTok to Telehealth: 3 Ways Medicine Must Evolve to Reach Gen Z
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

From TikTok to Telehealth: 3 Ways Medicine Must Evolve to Reach Gen Z

Ask people how much they expect to change over the next 10 years, and most will say “not much.” Ask them how much they’ve changed in the past decade, and the answer flips. Regardless of age, the past always feels more transformative than the future.

This blind spot has a name: the end-of-history illusion. The result is a persistent illusion that life, and the values and behaviors that shape it, will remain unchanged.

Keep ReadingShow less