From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: []  Risks of academic cheating by computer
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:31:56 GMT


Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 9:21:08 CDT
From: riddle@hounix.org (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject:  Risks of academic cheating by computer

There is an academic cheating brouhaha this semester at the university where I
work which is brimming over with computer risks.  I am not privy to the details
of the case, but here is a summary from the published accounts.

This university has an Honor Code governing student cheating which is a source
of much school pride.  Students agree not to give or receive aid on schoolwork
and as a result the university can function without the burden of proctored
exams.  Alleged violations of the Honor Code are taken before the Honor
Council, an elected student body which has the authority to dole out
substantial punishments.  Honor Council cases are publicized in the form of
anonymous abstracts which mask the identities of all parties.

Enter the computer: Earlier this semester, two students were accused of
colluding on a homework assignment which was done and handed in via one of the
university's academic computer networks.  Their TA noticed that portions of the
two students' homework were identical, down to the initials of one of the
students.  Network officials were asked to examine backup tapes for the period
of time in question and produced evidence which supported the theory that
"Student B" had sent homework to "Student A" by electronic mail immediately
before Student A turned it in.  The students argued that they were innocent and
were the victims of a frame-up by an unknown "User X" who they alleged had
gained access to their accounts.  The Honor Council refused to accept the "User
X" theory and convicted both students.  Student B's conviction was later
overturned partly on the basis of further evidence supplied by network
officials which suggested that Student A committed the acts of cheating alone
by logging in to Student B's account.

Although officially the case is closed, it is the subject of much heated debate
in the student newspaper and local Usenet newsgroups at the university.  Both
students continue to maintain their innocence and their supporters have rallied
around the slogan "Free Student A".

Computer risks seem to surround this case on all sides.  A few which
come to mind:

-- The risk of cheating by computer in the first place.  While academic
cheating is as old as academia, the computer can make it, like so many other
things, easier than ever before.

-- The risk of frame-ups.  While the Honor Council appears to be satisfied that
the computer evidence substantiates real cheating in this case, it is clear
that a person with access to one or more users' accounts could at least cause
them a major nuisance and possibly succeed in framing them of cheating.  With
the penalties involved going as high as academic suspension from a school which
costs thousands of dollars per semester, this is no light matter.

-- The complexity of evidence in cases of computer cheating.  Honor council
members were quoted in the student paper as complaining about the new and
bewildering kinds of evidence they are asked to consider in computer cheating
cases, and critics of the Honor Council have complained about the dangers of
being judged by people who are not users of the systems involved and don't
thoroughly understand them.

-- The burden on system administrators.  The network official who provided the
bulk of the evidence estimated that he spent a full week gathering and
analyzing it.  Since the case came up, the local academic network has extended
the period of time it keeps daily backups before recycling them.  How much data
is it reasonable to keep, and to pore over, in order to provide evidence in
cases like this?  I don't know of a way to determine a firm answer.

-- The danger to trust and to openness.  Both the university's Honor Code and
the tradition of open exchange of information within the computing community
are threatened by cases like this.  Must students be kept in a "padded shell"
to prevent computerized cheating?

-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") priddle@hounix.org
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=