A Pointless Sting, Blackmail, and No Surprise Whatsoever
Plus, deadline for European Integrity Awards approaches. Plus, yet another law firm is circling Chegg.
Issue 286
Subscribe below to join 3,812 other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 18 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 36 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Thank you!
A Sting, Blackmail, and Complete Lack of Surprise
Inside Higher Ed (IHE), as has been well documented (see Issue 274), does not cover academic integrity well. In fact, they’re really pretty bad at it.
Consequently, I always have mixed feelings when IHE does a story on academic integrity — happy for the visibility of what I think is an important issue, and regret over how they will inevitably mess it up. This week, IHE did a big story on cheating and — yeah.
The IHE headline is:
Sting Operation Fools a Proctoring Service—and Results in Blackmail Attempt
I’ll start at the end because I think that’s where the news is, though disclosing that absolutely nothing in this article is news at all. Like, nothing. Nonetheless, the blackmail portion is important.
Blackmail
In case you have not read the article, the setup is that an administrator at Polk State College (FL), decided to hire a contract cheater to impersonate a student and take an online assessment remotely, ostensibly testing the school’s remote proctoring systems. Regarding the blackmail, IHE reports:
In running the experiment, however, [college staff] uncovered a new risk that students expose themselves to when using contract cheating companies: Blackmail.
In no way is blackmail by remote cheaters “a new risk.” Nothing was uncovered. I mean, if you’re brand new to the world of academic integrity, it may be new to you — but it’s not new.
I’ve written about blackmail attempts by contract cheating providers at least a dozen times. I even interviewed a student who was blackmailed (see Issue 48). That was in 2021. Also in 2021, I wrote how the UK government was warning schools about the threats of blackmail from contract cheaters (see Issue 45). Also in 2021, a professor from Australia wrote an entire article on the increased risks of blackmail by paid cheaters (see Issue 79). Every expert or informed observer of this space knows of this risk. But like Columbus discovering America, the folks at IHE and Polk State have uncovered a new risk.
Anyway, the risk is real and significant. And the details of the attempted blackmail at Polk State are frightening. From the reporting, where Ragsdale is Katie Ragsdale, the school instructional designer who hired the cheating company for her online test:
It didn’t take long for Exam Rabbit to start threatening Ragsdale after the brief lapse in processing her payment. The company began sending her and her friends a barrage of messages threatening “to burn her career.”
Although Ragsdale has strong privacy settings on her personal Facebook that prevent people she doesn’t know from posting on her page, the contract cheater started posting messages on her friends’ pages alongside pictures of her cheating on the exam. They threatened to send them to Polk State “in case she tries to play with me to avoid her payment.”
“I Took Her Final Exam Yesterday after Bypassing Honorlock software. He [ sic ] had promised to pay $250 for the service,” a Facebook account with the name Abdul Manan wrote. “She just blocked me and she no not replying to do a scam of payment. Please request her to clear my payment.”
These are the kinds of threats that paid cheaters deploy — even when they are paid.
And, as I’ve written before, this reality makes maximum prevention tactics by professors and schools a moral imperative. Simply warning students is not enough. Simply proctoring assessments is not enough. If there is even a slight chance that an intervention could keep students from these circumstances, it should not be overlooked. Schools cannot claim to care for their students and ignore these dangers.
Exam Rabbit and Illicit Activities
And though not related in a big way, this bit was funny. IHE contacted Exam Rabbit and got this statement:
“We fully condemn any attempts to misuse the name of Exam Rabbit for illicit activities such as cheating or blackmailing,” the statement said. “Rest assured, we are committed to upholding the integrity of our services and maintaining the trust of our clients.”
Come on, that’s a knee-slapper.
The Non-News Bypass
But back on track, the bigger issue here seems to be that a paid cheater bypassed the Honorlock proctoring service. To which I say — no kidding. And that this has nothing to do with Honorlock or remote exam proctoring. There is no academic integrity system that cannot be bypassed. Rephrasing — given the time, resources, and desire, every integrity system can be hacked, stepped over, or tricked. Every. One.
Even so, the ability to sidestep security systems does not mean they should not be used. On the contrary, integrity preservation tools such as Honorlock are crucial, even with any vulnerabilities.
Using proctoring — the example in this case — signals to students that the assessment has value and is worth protecting. It signals that cheating is known to be a threat and is being addressed. It raises the risk of detection and the possibility of consequences to above zero. It protects the efforts of honest students by potentially removing unfair results from competitive or comparative grading. It creates a reality in which the best way to safely pass an exam may be to do the required work and that the assessment itself is measuring competency instead of cheating prowess.
Every one of those things matters.
But most importantly, the alternative to proctoring your exams is not proctoring your exams, and — good luck with that. The jury, as they say, has been in on this question for some time now.
The analogy I use all the time is door locks. They can absolutely be defeated, given enough motivation to do so. But no one suggests not locking your doors.
Moreover, as mentioned before, that an academic integrity solution can be hacked is not news. That is — if you have any awareness of academic integrity at all. Figuring out that exam security systems can be hacked is like discovering your own feet.
When a Flag Doesn’t Count
It’s also not clear at all that Honorlock was even bypassed in this case. Despite the headline declaring that a sting operation “fools a proctoring service,” the reporting says the teacher of the class with the cheated exam was notified of suspicious behavior in the test:
“I did get a report that there was suspicious activity on Katie’s test, but it’s not what you’d think,” Hess said. “It was just because she was so bored while they took the test for her that she was looking around the room. They wanted me to review it in case she was talking to someone else in the room, which she wasn’t.”
Hess is Kimberly Hess, a math professor at Polk.
In other words, the proctor flagged the test session because the test-taker was looking around the room during the exam, something the professor — who was in on the breach — dismissed with “it was just because she was so bored.”
I mean, do we have to call Sherlock Holmes to crack this one?
If the proctoring provider flagged an exam and it was reviewed by a professor who was not a party to the deception in the first place — which almost never happens, by the way — what are the odds that the professor would see a bored student looking around the room and conclude everything was normal? Long. Those odds are long. To Hess, that was “just because” she knew what was really happening.
In other words, the system worked. It flagged suspicious activity during a test session, which is what they do. If Honorlock did not detect exactly what the breach was, that’s a conversation worth having. But if I understand correctly, the Honorlock system being used is designed to detect suspicious activity and flag it for review, which it did. As such, I confess to not seeing how it was fooled. The exam was flagged when the student looked around the room during the exam. That’s suspicious. I don’t get it.
Immediate Action
There is a difference worth mentioning, though — the ability to intercede or act on suspicious activity during an exam versus the ability to review something after the deeds are done. That’s fair. And Hess, the professor, seems to think that not being able to intercede with the crime is blazing is a defect of proctoring, saying:
“One of the toughest things about being a professor is that we almost always cannot prove that our students are cheating,” she said. “If I were giving a test in a classroom and a student was acting suspicious I could intervene immediately. Whereas, in a remote setting where someone else is proctoring, we see it hours or days later. We just see the videotape and we can’t say, ‘Please show me what’s on your paper in front of you.’”
Evidence and direct engagement are different issues. I assume a professor has access to the video of the assessment, which is evidence. And I’d argue as well that if exam conduct is suspicious, there are a million ways to address the situation that don’t require absolute proof. Professors have many options.
As to the issue of being able to “intervene immediately” versus “see it hours or days later,” that’s fair. Except that many proctoring services allow trained proctors or even professors to see an exam in real time and intercede immediately. I think Honorlock has one, or a version of one. But many schools don’t use them because they cost more. And because leaders at some of these schools believe that real-time proctoring is too intrusive. But mostly, it’s the money.
So, if Hess or other professors are displeased by a lag in being able to address possible misconduct, only knowing after it happens, they should upgrade. A public complaint that a system does not do what you did not pay it to do seems — I don’t know — off. Like complaining that you did not get a bigger seat on the airplane when your company bought the economy fare. Economy is fine. It works. Just measure your complaints is all I am saying. That’s the option you chose.
Before I let this go, I have three more, hopefully quick, points.
One, Two and a Bow on Top
One is that, according to the reporting, the exam that was cheated was:
an online multiple-choice College Algebra exam
My goodness. The school has an online, multiple-choice algebra exam. If there’s an assessment that’s easier to cheat than an online, multiple-choice math exam, tell me.
Also, at some point in the story, Professor Hess says:
“As a professor, I have to change the way I assess my students. How can I phrase math questions in such a way that an AI bot can’t answer?”
You cannot. Not that this entire thing had anything to do with AI, but the answer is the same — cannot be done. But worse, an AI bot is not half your problem. Chegg, Course Hero, collusion, AI bots, browser extensions, and — yes — paid cheaters are all serious threats. But if that is a serious question, allow me to offer that an online, multiple-choice test is not the answer.
And finally, the bow on top — courtesy of IHE.
About the expansion of online courses and programs and a corresponding expansion in integrity and security services such as remote proctoring, IHE writes:
But for some students, the increased institutional reliance on third-party proctoring services to deliver exams remotely has also presented a new, high-tech opportunity to cheat. Numerous contract cheating services advertised online promise the ability to bypass proctor software, take control of a paying tester’s computer and complete the exam for them—presumably with an impressive score and without detection.
If I am reading that right, a reliance on proctoring presents a new opportunity to cheat. Unbelievable.
So, here’s a fun game. Name one opportunity to cheat with a proctoring provider that is unavailable without one.
So, yeah — not only is almost nothing about this actually news, but IHE has somehow managed to lay this entire thing at the feet of the proctoring companies — buying into the idea that one was fooled, then seeming to blame them for presenting the cheating opportunities in the first place.
Yet Another Legal Challenge Brewing for Chegg
In the last Issue of The Cheat Sheet, we shared that, after a federal judge rejected Chegg’s effort to have a fraud lawsuit dismissed (see Issue 280), a law firm in California was publicly fishing for information related to a potential suit of their own.
Well, now it’s a party.
According to this similar press release, a law firm in Louisiana has its eye on Chegg too. The headline is:
CHEGG INVESTIGATION INITIATED by Former Louisiana Attorney General: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Investigates the Officers and Directors of Chegg, Inc. - CHGG
If you’re Chegg, that does not sound good.
If you’re in favor of integrity, or fairness, or support the value of an educational credential, that sounds like a chorus of heavenly angels.
The release says:
[Chegg] and certain of its executives were sued in a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period in violation of federal securities laws; specifically, the frequency of cheating on the Company’s platform and the true drivers of its revenue growth, among other things. Recently, the court presiding over that case denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move forward.
Yup.
And it asks:
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Chegg shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-833-938-0905 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit us at https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-chgg/ to learn more.
You know, just in case anyone reading this has anything to share about Chegg.
Deadline Approaching: European Integrity Awards
The deadline to submit nominations for annual awards from the European Network for Academic Integrity is April 8, according to this post on LinkedIn. The link to make nominations is here:
https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/nomination-form-for-enai-award/
Reminder — if you have news about awards, conferences, presentations, or similar, and you’d like to share it with thousands of people in the academic integrity community, you’re invited to send it in. I will be happy to share it. You may reach me directly at Derek@NovemberGroup.net