Online learning has made things more flexible, but it has also created new challenges, especially around cheating. One solution schools have used is remote proctoring software like Honorlock. These tools are meant to protect academic integrity, but they have also raised a lot of concerns from students, mostly around privacy. What makes Honorlock interesting is that even though the company followed strict data protection rules, many students still didn’t trust it. That says a lot about how consumer perception actually works.

The main issue here is privacy. Remote proctoring software can access your webcam, microphone, screen activity, and sometimes even your surroundings. Even if it’s being used for a legitimate reason, that still feels invasive to a lot of people. Research on online proctoring has shown that this kind of monitoring can come across as intrusive, especially when it involves watching students in their own homes (Kolowich, 2013) . Other research also points out that newer systems using AI and behavior tracking can make students feel like they are constantly being watched, which adds to that discomfort (Slusky, 2020).

At the same time, if you look at Honorlock’s actual policies, they were doing what they were supposed to do. The company states that it complies with major data privacy laws like GDPR, FERPA, COPPA, and CCPA. It also maintains SOC 2 Type II certification, which means its systems are audited for security and data protection. According to its privacy policy, the data collected is used to run the service, improve performance, and maintain security, not to sell or misuse personal information . From a legal and ethical standpoint, that is pretty solid.

Even with that in place, the perception from students was still negative. I saw this firsthand when I worked in a support role at Honorlock. A lot of students reached out frustrated or anxious, and most of the time it wasn’t because they had proof that their data was being misused. It was more about how the experience felt. Being recorded during an exam, especially in your own room, made people uncomfortable. Even when we explained the privacy protections, it didn’t always change how they felt about it.

The company did try to respond to this over time. We were trained on de-escalation techniques to help students who were stressed during exams, and there was more effort to explain how the system works and how data is handled before students even started. That helped, but it also showed that the issue was never just about whether the company was following the rules. It was about whether users felt okay using the product.

The timing also played a big role. During COVID, a lot of students who were used to in-person classes were suddenly pushed into fully online environments. On top of learning everything remotely, they also had to get used to being monitored during exams. That made the whole experience feel even more uncomfortable. It wasn’t just about privacy, it was about a sudden shift in how school worked.

There’s also a bigger point here about how people think about privacy. A lot of users will accept terms and conditions on apps without reading them, but react much more strongly to something that feels visibly invasive. In this case, the webcam and monitoring features made the issue feel more real, even if the actual data practices were compliant and secure.

In terms of engagement, Honorlock is a good example of how usage doesn’t always mean trust. Students still used the software because they had to, not because they liked it. That kind of forced engagement can still hurt a brand over time, especially if people associate it with stress or discomfort.

Looking at the bigger picture, the impact on the brand is less about legal trouble and more about reputation. Even without proven wrongdoing, ongoing distrust can make it harder for a company to build positive relationships with users. In a space like education, where trust matters a lot, that’s a real challenge.

If Honorlock could have done anything differently, it would have been focusing more on the user experience earlier on. The policies were there, but most people are not going to read a full privacy policy. Breaking things down in a simpler way, being more transparent upfront, and addressing the emotional side of the experience could have helped. The de-escalation training and improved messaging were steps in the right direction, but they came after the backlash had already started.

At the end of the day, this situation shows that doing the right thing behind the scenes is not always enough. People care about how something feels just as much as what it actually does. In Honorlock’s case, the company followed the rules, but still struggled with trust because the experience felt invasive. That’s something a lot of brands can learn from.

References

Kolowich, S. (2013). Behind the webcam’s watchful eye. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Slusky, L. (2020). Cybersecurity of online proctoring systems. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 29(1).

Honorlock Inc. (2025). Privacy policy.