Convenient or Invasive?

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education talked about the need for authentication of Distance Education students. How do schools know the identity of the person taking an on line course? Is the person getting the credit the person doing the work? The "tone" of the article suggested that this was invasive technology and potentially breached student privacy.

But what about other benefits of this technology? Schools certainly are interested in security and as Distance Education programs are sometimes held to different "standards", they want to assure the validity of exam results. But isn't there more to this solution? Isn't it convenient for students to be able to test wherever they live, work or learn? From a cost perspective and rising gasoline prices, I certainly think about whether or not a trip in the car is necessary or not. I would think with the heightened emphasis on "green" solutions, the choice of where and when to take a test would be a cost saving opportunity as well as environmentally responsible. Whether we know it or not, we are watched all the time. Parking lots, roads, shopping malls, business centers have us on camera or are taping us as we go about daily routines. We don't really know who sees us and we certainly can't turn the cameras off. Is it truly more invasive when we turn a webcam on for a proctor to monitor a test and then turn it off when we complete it?