I’m having trouble putting a term to similar situations:

Where people (whether government, corporate, nonprofit) get in over their head and create these sorts of problems while trying to solve something they don’t appropriately understand.

There’s a lot of poor decision making in our institutions ranging from HOA’s, multinational nonprofits, and federal governments, notably in domain specific situations that require nuanced understanding.

Maybe we need to start introducing the concepts of circuit breakers in our rules, regulations & laws to eject when something goes wrong or doesn’t go right based on basic KPI’s.

Have we solved the “basics” (despite not getting those right) and are running into compounding edge cases? Do we just need people better equipped to handle these decisions? I think these sorts of problems (more broadly than the specific topic in the article) are going to be a plague on our society.

Remote proctoring software in a hetrogeneous device environment is impossible with current technology. As the EFF says, it’s snake oil. I don’t know what to do about traditionally invigilated certification exams like the bar, but I do know that it’s deeply foolish and unethical to use this stuff when you have an alternative (like universities and schools do by setting open-book coursework etc). With something like the bar, I think the only solution would be to provisionally certify these people to work for a year or two under supervision, based on the results of their degrees and make them take the exam later under controlled conditions.

Apparently the software flagged certain ethnicities more then others like asian women, from a friend I know who took the exam