> I imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to run the machines so that only one full-screen window is shown, or a user for whom the internet is disabled. Is that not enough?

Many of the anti-cheating software will also run the webcam and yell at you if it thinks you aren't paying attention to only the screen, while recording everything on your screen.

And students are being forced to install this on their home machines.

> And students are being forced to install this on their home machines.

Wait, what if I work from home and my kid is sitting in the living room as well. I get recorded then? WTF???

Who owns these machines? Is it the parents or the school or the government or who? What if they decline? Can someone explain why a child has to accept that they are being watched on a webcam without their consent? Without the consent of their parent? And, "either accept it or don't get allowed at exam" isn't a choice. They ain't going to high school yet, but I don't envision I would allow my children to be scrutinized by this. Then again, who expected COVID-19. I can only hope this is temporary, but perhaps its part of 'the new normal'.

> Wait, what if I work from home and my kid is sitting in the living room as well. I get recorded then? WTF???

If the software detects that you're in the room your kid fails.

Then my kid would fail, or they'd have to use their bedroom. Which is, IMO, a very private space.

Too bad your opinion doesn’t matter. That is how this stuff works, you are not the first to complain, they’ve heard every argument you can come up with before and they don’t care.

While I am not from USA, supposedly in USA people also care about privacy. My opinion as a parent matters in the context of my child (as I am legally responsible), and in the end what matters is the law (which is above "don't care"). I'm very curious if this is even legal, and if so, in which jurisdictions. If I don't give my child permission to have a camera active in my private space, what is going to happen?

> If I don't give my child permission to have a camera active in my private space, what is going to happen?

Your child will not be allowed to take the exam.

I am curious about people like you. We know the outcome answer they want, but someone like you chimes in an claims it can't be been done.

Can you explain this defeatist attitude to me and what purpose it does providing the already known negative outcome?

To me, the language you used suggested that you are already bought, sold, and controlled.

Unless you have enough money/lawyers to fight it in court, there really isn't much option.

You take the tests, with the software, or you fail.

What would you do in that situation if it were you. I would personally choose to fail and not be apart of a system that does this, but it sounds like you embrace it?

Nobody is suggesting the system is good.

Your question is about the current process though, and the answer is if you really do not have access to a room with internet that you can use for a couple of hours, the best thing you can do is to contact your school and see what arrangements can be made to accommodate you.

I actually have gone out of my way to, and have mostly successfully avoided that situations, and have gone out of my way to point out to schools the damage they are doing.

However, not everyone has that option, is willing to take that option, or understands the ramifications of not taking that option.

I hate the current system. I also understand why people choose to follow it.

Edit 0: It looks like maybe this conversation has hit the maximum depth for HN? If you'd like to continue talking, please feel free to email me.

Edit 1: Turns out I was wrong. The reply timer just hadn't passed. Still feel free to email me if you like.

To call it "embrace" is unfair to the parent comment. People get coerced to accept things all the time, especially when it concerns the future of their children. Very few people have an "all or nothing" kind of mentality when it comes to resisting establishment, especially when the cost of accepting is relatively minor. In this case, accepting the anti-cheat has a very low cost: enduring a crapware and spyware for a little while.

It's simply a compromise.

> What kind of cheat does it prevent?

Not much. When lockdowns first started I remember seeing _tons_ of first and second hand accounts of all the ways anti-cheating software failed when exposed to the real world.

> I imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to run the machines so that only one full-screen window is shown, or a user for whom the internet is disabled. Is that not enough?

It can be a little tricky. We put the test in a single full-screen window on top of any other windows, and...the students alter the transparency to view their notes behind it, or they notice that we only check windows in the current desktop or for the current active user. Maybe "full-screen" on the system in question only fills a single monitor and leaves another open for research.

All of that assumes that the student is only using a single device and doesn't have a hi-def pet silicon rock in their pockets at all times, hence the webcam monitoring and whatnot to check that a student is actively staring at the screen the whole time.

I'd fail if I had to go through this. When thinking hard about a problem, I like to clear my mind of visual distractions by looking out at the sky and if I'm not near a window, simply close my eyes.

Next step: Webcam device which simulates student watching the screen :)

This already exists for anyone sufficiently motivated. It's a video input playing back a prerecorded video showing absolute attention, with the device IDs coded to pretend that it's a video camera rather than a generic video input (e.g. HDMI input)

Now I come to think of it... Reminds of when I was in middle school, we used a bug in Chinese IME to crash the software used to control our machines.

The webcam solution also seems entirely bypassable if the student is determined. (Speaking from my experience as a TA, students who cheat are usually pretty determined) Just put a phone to the level of the monitor, and there's nothing a webcam can do.

Taking the test with shades is legal is it not?

At my university in Russia, we had a special testing classroom with these weird Sun thin clients that only ran Firefox in a very minimalistic window manager in a unix system of some sort. Said Firefox would only open the website of the testing system.

So, obviously, everyone just used their phones for cheating lol.

Can't they have a KVM switch connected to a second computer that could cheat while seemingly appearing like one is still using the test computer?