As a small note on the page labeled 281, they remark that they called for digital cheating methods since analog ones like cheat sheets were previously already f

As a small note on the page labeled 281, they remark that they called for digital cheating methods since analog ones like cheat sheets were previously already found to be "virtually undetectable". Also interesting: you can create profiles to weigh things more heavily, like weigh a abnormal noises worse than normal if you are suspecting students of using audio calls. They made a profile specific to each of the cheater's method and retroactively applied those profiles to the collected data, and still half of them could not be made to show up near the top of the suspects list. And this is only possible if you already know the exact cheating method your class will use. The page labeled 288 does make a compelling case for how the spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt is effective, leading to less people trying to cheat. It just doesn't stop the cheaters that risk the perceived odds and I doubt this is sustainable once such systems are everywhere and they notice it's safe. For now, you might as well turn on a dummy system that claims to be real by doesn't actually invade privacy because it's a dummy. Per the results, it would be equally effective and thus achieve the best of both worlds.