An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits
vice.com
vice.com
No one would claim that fact-checking statements is a "lie detector" under this law.
(And not everything called a "lie detector" can detect lies, either. A polygraph test doesn't detect lies at all... and yet it is exactly the type of test banned. In fact, that's one of the main reasons why it is banned: because it doesn't work for its stated purpose.)
More broadly than what? I can't recall giving a specific definition for lie detector.
It sounds like what you are describing is basically a way to use mouse movements to detect psychological stress, which is more or less the same way a polygraph is designed to work. So it would be banned, because it's the same type of thing that a polygraph is.
"The term lie detector means a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual. Voice stress analyzers, or psychological stress evaluators, include any systems that utilize voice stress analysis, whether or not an opinion on honesty or dishonesty is specifically rendered"
> Lying is a behavior, and cheating is dishonest.
I'm aware of the definition.
The problem is that it depends on whether mouse movements are being used to detect psychological stress or whether they are used to detect that someone is cheating by flipping to another browser window or talking with someone in a chat window.
And does the law require it to be "invasive"? I don't see this in the section that was quoted in GP.
" potentially showing students ways to circumvent the software, thus risking the safety and security of the millions of students who use our platform.”
Say what? In what way(s?) did his actions impact on the students' safety or security? The videos have been pulled but note that the CEO is talking about how showing people how to 'possibly' (his words not mine) circumvert the proctoring in any way shape or form affects the students' safety or security?
[Edit for the pedantic, CEO said 'potentially' rather than 'possibly'.]
I had an issue where their plugin, which only worked on chrome at the time IDK if that has changed, stopped working. And I had about 1 hour before my final exam.
They went through the normal expected steps, then started recommending crazy shit! For example, they recommended that I delete all my bookmarks from my browser and "see if that works". And if it didn't, to re-install the operating system. Their other recommendation was to go buy another laptop -- in an hour!
Then, they basically just said ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I understand that there is only so much a phone tech can do in that situation, but these exams are very, very important. I am not sure I would have been able to get a waiver to take it at another time and could have ruined my GPA and been out thousands of dollars. Luckily I got it working on another computer that I had, so everything worked out in the end.
I am not a fan!
I took the GRE this summer. Because of the pandemic, I used ETS's new (and temporary) at-home testing option. Someone from ProctorU watched me through my webcam the whole time, and it felt totally invasive and creepy.
But, what else was the ETS supposed to do? For a high-stakes exam like the GRE, I don't think "trust people to not cheat" is a viable option. That isn't to say these remote proctoring solutions will necessarily prevent cheating either (and having now used one of these services, I think cheating would have been relatively easy), but it at least should make test takers think twice.
I think we can all agree that an in-person exam would have been better, but the state of the world made that untenable.
Sounds like security theater.
>I think we can all agree that an in-person exam would have been better, but the state of the world made that untenable.
Why not? Just rent out a large open space (stadium, convention center, school gym), and space the students 20ft apart. The risk should be negligible. Let's be honest here, the real reason is that [cost of exam surveillance software] < [cost of conducting a physically distanced exam]
I think a bit of security theater is exactly what's called for in this scenario.
This isn't like hacking into a computer network, or bringing an explosive onto an airplane, where one dedicated bad actor can defeat the system for everyone. It's much closer to something like shoplifting, where your goal is to make instances of bad behavior as low as possible, given other constraints. A security camera does not need to be 100% effective to be worth installing—and doesn't even necessarily need to be turned on.
A remotely-administered multiple-choice test is like a retail store without any staff, which asks customers to kindly leave money in a basket. You're much better off with even a single cashier, and even one who spends most of their day watching Netflix.
... has been discussed at length by people with direct knowledge. E.g. Dr. David Joyner. In-person proctoring works for a niche set of situations but leaves a lot of other students unable to participate.
Only because you haven't taken the time to make sure your personal testing location is prelared for public viewing, since usually you don't have to worry about that.
I assume it hasn't left behind a giant security hole or explicit keylogger—and I did make a time machine backup before the test which I restored afterwards...
Because they are worried about reputational damage from cheating. Even with tools like Proctorio, ProctorTrack, HonorLock, etc, the cheating rate is pretty high in programs like OMSCS.
"[Proctorio CEO] Olsen posted a copy of the student’s chat logs"
But also - colleges and universities should simply not be using this software. Students are not, in general, able to give active consent for such software to be used against their interest.
How can information gathered from examining a publicly available product possibly be confidential?
Caltech had take-home exams for a long time and students still adhere to the honor code.
We have pretty good tools for plagiarism detection. It's time to shift from rote learning exams to another format (essay, lab assignments for computer science). Else it's simply an arm race for cheating (soon some kid will just get an e-ink display in a picture frame and as soon as it goes out of the proctor's webcam field of view will turn into a cheat sheet).
But at the same time, if you have to put draconian measures to discourage cheating as the last resort, maybe it's because the school is turning into a diploma mill and should review it's admission standards.
Granted the "value evaluation" gets a bit silly to begin with given that either they trust the name enough to use it as a filter regardless of its merit or lack of it or they ignore it entirely and go based off of their own assessment measures with their own sets of issues.
A quick follow up call where the TA or teacher asks questions regarding the essay should make it obvious someone isn't the original author.
Just needs a common trigger signal and some tweaking and you are good to go.