Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#11

Post by klodolph »

vageli wrote: post #9
srtjstjsj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't invasive physiological analyzers, and they aren't assessing honesty, they are detecting behaviors, so no.

Lying is a behavior, and cheating is dishonest.

We can go down the rabbit hole all we want, but a "lie detector" is a specific type of device. Not everything that can detect lies is a lie detector.

(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.)

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#12

Post by Wowfunhappy »

coldcode wrote: post #3

Why anyone would pay these folks anything is beyond me. While cheating is certainly a thing, and easier to do online, violating people's personal space and trusting in some average behavior BS to flag things as suspicious does not seem worth the cost. Add in ridiculous behavior by the company, if I were an educational institution I'd stay far away from these people. I remember reading about something similar being us…

I'm a little more sympathetic.

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.

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#13

Post by xphilter »

klodolph wrote: post #11
vageli wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying is a behavior, and cheating is dishonest.

We can go down the rabbit hole all we want, but a "lie detector" is a specific type of device. Not everything that can detect lies is a lie detector. (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.)

Right, but the "specific type of device" is defined more broadly than that -- so if I code a "lie detector" that tracks mouse movements during an online interview (my hypothesis would be that liars and cheats move their mouse more sporadically), could I use that code as a part of an interview process?

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#14

Post by rootusrootus »

coldcode wrote: post #3

Why anyone would pay these folks anything is beyond me. While cheating is certainly a thing, and easier to do online, violating people's personal space and trusting in some average behavior BS to flag things as suspicious does not seem worth the cost. Add in ridiculous behavior by the company, if I were an educational institution I'd stay far away from these people. I remember reading about something similar being us…

> Why anyone would pay these folks anything is beyond me.

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.

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#15

Post by klodolph »

xphilter wrote: post #13
klodolph wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can go down the rabbit hole all we want, but a "lie detector" is a specific type of device. Not everything that can detect lies is a lie detector. (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.)

Right, but the "specific type of device" is defined more broadly than that -- so if I code a "lie detector" that tracks mouse movements during an online interview (my hypothesis would be that liars and cheats move their mouse more sporadically), could I use that code as a part of an interview process?

> Right, but the "specific type of device" is defined more broadly than that...

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.

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#16

Post by xphilter »

klodolph wrote: post #15
xphilter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the "specific type of device" is defined more broadly than that -- so if I code a "lie detector" that tracks mouse movements during an online interview (my hypothesis would be that liars and cheats move their mouse more sporadically), could I use that code as a part of an interview process?

> Right, but the "specific type of device" is defined more broadly than that... 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 polygra…

Sorry -- it's in my original question, from the statute (here https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/801.2)

"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"

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#17

Post by klodolph »

xphilter wrote: post #16
klodolph wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, but the "specific type of device" is defined more broadly than that... 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 polygra…

Sorry -- it's in my original question, from the statute (here https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/801.2 ) "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…

Yes, sorry... I'm not responding to your original question, I'm responding to the oversimplification,

> 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.

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#18

Post by dqv »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #4

This (for example) should be wildly illegal, if it isn't already: "[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.

It would be in the US since FERPA requires written permission to release student records, but who knows in Canada.

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#19

Post by gruez »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #12
coldcode wrote: post #3

Why anyone would pay these folks anything is beyond me. While cheating is certainly a thing, and easier to do online, violating people's personal space and trusting in some average behavior BS to flag things as suspicious does not seem worth the cost. Add in ridiculous behavior by the company, if I were an educational institution I'd stay far away from these people. I remember reading about something similar being us…

I'm a little more sympathetic. 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 remot…

>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.

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]

Re: An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics with Lawsuits

#20

Post by appleflaxen »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #6
xphilter wrote: post #5

If there are any lawyers here, I'd love thoughts on whether these tools (used in employment/interview settings) violate 29 CFR § 801.4 - Prohibitions on lie detector use. (I know this article is about schools and in Canada). I've been thinking these tools do violate, but never filed a case alleging it (yet). Specifically, these anti-cheat "algorithms" seem to be "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psyc…

They aren't invasive physiological analyzers, and they aren't assessing honesty, they are detecting behaviors, so no.

They are not invasive to your body, but they are invasive into your home/environment.

And does the law require it to be "invasive"? I don't see this in the section that was quoted in GP.

Post reply on HN