Remote Proctoring; Cheating; Obfuscation; Privacy-Utility; Fairness; UX; Willingness to Share
Résumé :
[en] Remote proctoring technology, a cheating-preventive measure, often raises privacy and fairness concerns that may affect test-takers' experiences and the validity of test results. Our study explores how selectively obfuscating information in video recordings can protect test-takers' privacy while ensuring effective and fair cheating detection. Interviews with experts (N=9) identified four key video regions indicative of potential cheating behaviors: the test-taker's face, body, background and the presence of individuals in the background. Experts recommended specific obfuscation methods for each region based on privacy significance and cheating behavior frequency, ranging from conventional blurring to advanced methods like replacement with deepfake, 3D avatars and silhouetting. We then conducted a vignette experiment with potential test-takers (N=259, non-experts) to evaluate their perceptions of cheating detection, visual privacy and fairness, using descriptions and examples of still images for each expert-recommended combination of video regions and obfuscation methods. Our results indicate that the effectiveness of obfuscation methods varies by region. Tailoring remote proctoring with region-specific advanced obfuscation methods can improve the perceptions of privacy and fairness compared to the conventional methods, though it may decrease perceived information sufficiency for detecting cheating. However, non-experts preferred conventional blurring for videos they were more willing to share, highlighting a gap between the perceived effectiveness of the advanced obfuscation methods and their practical acceptance. This study contributes to the field of user-centered privacy by suggesting promising directions to address current remote proctoring challenges and guiding future research.
Disciplines :
Education & enseignement
Auteur, co-auteur :
MUKHERJEE, Suvadeep ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > IRiSC
LENZINI, Gabriele ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > IRiSC
CARDOSO LEITE, Pedro ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences (DBCS) > Cognitive Science and Assessment
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Balancing The Perception of Cheating Detection, Privacy and Fairness: A Mixed-Methods Study of Visual Data Obfuscation in Remote Proctoring
Date de publication/diffusion :
2024
Nom de la manifestation :
The 2024 European Symposium on Usable Security (EuroUSEC'24)
Lieu de la manifestation :
Karlstad, Suède
Date de la manifestation :
September 30-October 1, 2024
Manifestation à portée :
International
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
Proceedings of the 2024 European Symposium on Usable Security
Maison d'édition :
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, Etats-Unis
FNR14926102 - Secure And Verifiable Electronic Testing And Assessment Systems, 2020 (01/05/2021-30/04/2025) - Gabriele Lenzini
Organisme subsidiant :
ANR - Agence Nationale de la Recherche FNR - Fonds National de la Recherche
Subventionnement (détails) :
This research is the result of the project 'Secure and Verifiable Electronic Testing and Assessment Systems' (INTER/ANR/20/14926102/SEVERITAS) funded by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) and the French National Research Agency (ANR) .
David G Balash, Dongkun Kim, Darika Shaibekova, Rahel A Fainchtein, Micah Sherr, and Adam J Aviv. 2021. Examining the examiners: Students' privacy and security perceptions of online proctoring services. In Seventeenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2021). 633-652.
Ben Burgess, Avi Ginsberg, Edward W Felten, and Shaanan Cohney. 2022. Watching the watchers: bias and vulnerability in remote proctoring software. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22). 571-588.
Chris Burt. 2019. Sensetime partners with China Tower for massive biometric video surveillance network. Biometric Update (30 Sep 2019). https://www.biometricupdate.com/201909/sensetime-partners-withchina-tower-for-massive-biometric-video-surveillance-network
Wm Camron Casper, Bryan D Edwards, J Craig Wallace, Ronald S Landis, and Dustin A Fife. 2020. Selecting response anchors with equal intervals for summated rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 105, 4 (2020), 390.
Datong Chen, Yi Chang, Rong Yan, and Jie Yang. 2009. Protecting personal identification in video. Protecting Privacy in Video Surveillance (2009), 115-128.
Simon Coghlan, Tim Miller, and Jeannie Paterson. 2021. Good proctor or “big brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy & Technology 34, 4 (2021), 1581-1606.
Rianne Conijn, Ad Kleingeld, Uwe Matzat, and Chris Snijders. 2022. The fear of big brother: The potential negative side-effects of proctored exams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2022).
Claire Anne Conway, Benedict Christopher Jones, Lisa M DeBruine, and Anthony C Little. 2008. Evidence for adaptive design in human gaze preference. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275, 1630 (2008), 63-69.
Mohammad Dadashzadeh. 2021. The Online Examination Dilemma: To Proctor or Not to Proctor?. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies 25 (2021).
Catherine Dwyer, Starr Hiltz, and Katia Passerini. 2007. Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. AMCIS 2007 proceedings (2007), 339.
Adám Erdélyi, Thomas Winkler, and Bernhard Rinner. 2018. Privacy protection vs. utility in visual data: An objective evaluation framework. Multimedia tools and applications 77 (2018), 2285-2312.
Thomas B Fitzpatrick. 1988. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Archives of dermatology 124, 6 (1988), 869-871.
Tina L Freiburger, Danielle M Romain, Blake M Randol, and Catherine D Marcum. 2017. Cheating behaviors among undergraduate college students: Results from a factorial survey. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 28, 2 (2017), 222-247.
Yun Fu, Renxiang Li, Thomas S Huang, and Mike Danielsen. 2008. Real-time multimodal human-avatar interaction. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 18, 4 (2008), 467-477.
Kelly Grindstaff and Michael Mascarenhas. 2019. “No One Wants to Believe It”: Manifestations of White Privilege in a STEM-Focused College. Multicultural Perspectives 21, 2 (2019), 102-111.
Marc Hassenzahl and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & information technology 25, 2 (2006), 91-97.
Darragh Higgins, Rebecca Fribourg, and Rachel McDonnell. 2021. Remotely perceived: Investigating the influence of valence on self-perception and social experience for dyadic video-conferencing with personalized avatars. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021), 668499.
Steven Hill, Zhimin Zhou, Lawrence K Saul, and Hovav Shacham. 2016. On the (In) effectiveness of Mosaicing and Blurring as Tools for Document Redaction. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2016, 4 (2016), 403-417.
Mohammed Juned Hussein, Javed Yusuf, Arpana Sandhya Deb, Letila Fong, and Som Naidu. 2020. An evaluation of online proctoring tools. Open Praxis 12, 4 (2020), 509-525.
Tabitha L James, Linda Wallace, Merrill Warkentin, Byung Cho Kim, and Stéphane E Collignon. 2017. Exposing others' information on online social networks (OSNs): Perceived shared risk, its determinants, and its influence on OSN privacy control use. Information & Management 54, 7 (2017), 851-865.
Ana Javornik, Ben Marder, Jennifer Brannon Barhorst, Graeme McLean, Yvonne Rogers, Paul Marshall, and Luk Warlop. 2022. 'What lies behind the filter?'Uncovering the motivations for using augmented reality (AR) face filters on social media and their effect on well-being. Computers in Human Behavior 128 (2022), 107126.
Dima Kagan, Galit Fuhrmann Alpert, and Michael Fire. 2023. Zooming Into Video Conferencing Privacy. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (2023).
Faten F Kharbat and Ajayeb S Abu Daabes. 2021. E-proctored exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A close understanding. Education and Information Technologies 26, 6 (2021), 6589-6605.
Yeolib Kim and Robert A Peterson. 2017. A Meta-analysis of Online Trust Relationships in E-commerce. Journal of interactive marketing 38, 1 (2017), 44-54.
Orest Kupyn, Tetiana Martyniuk, Junru Wu, and Zhangyang Wang. 2019. Deblurgan-v2: Deblurring (orders-of-magnitude) faster and better. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 8878-8887.
Karen Lander, Vicki Bruce, and Harry Hill. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of pixelation and blurring on masking the identity of familiar faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 15, 1 (2001), 101-116.
Haotian Li, Min Xu, Yong Wang, Huan Wei, and Huamin Qu. 2021. A visual analytics approach to facilitate the proctoring of online exams. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-17.
Yifang Li and Kelly Caine. 2022. Obfuscation Remedies Harms Arising from Content Flagging of Photos. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-25.
Yifang Li, Nishant Vishwamitra, Bart P Knijnenburg, Hongxin Hu, and Kelly Caine. 2017. Effectiveness and users' experience of obfuscation as a privacy-enhancing technology for sharing photos. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1-24.
Torrin M Liddell and John K Kruschke. 2018. Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79 (2018), 328-348.
Morgan Meaker. 2023. This Student Is Taking On 'Biased' Exam Software. Wired (5 Apr 2023). https://www.wired.co.uk/article/student-exam-software-biasproctorio
Suvadeep Mukherjee, Björn Rohles, Verena Distler, Gabriele Lenzini, and Vincent Koenig. 2023. The effects of privacy-non-invasive interventions on cheating prevention and user experience in unproctored online assessments: An empirical study. Computers & Education 207 (2023), 104925.
Geoff Norman. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education 15 (2010), 625-632.
Paraskevi Nousi, Sotirios Papadopoulos, Anastasios Tefas, and Ioannis Pitas. 2020. Deep autoencoders for attribute preserving face de-identification. Signal Processing: Image Communication 81 (2020), 115699.
Eyal Peer, David Rothschild, Andrew Gordon, Zak Evernden, and Ekaterina Damer. 2022. Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods (2022), 1.
Ian S Penton-Voak and Helen Y Chang. 2008. Attractiveness judgements of individuals vary across emotional expression and movement conditions. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 6, 2 (2008), 89-100.
Sabid Bin Habib Pias, Imtiaz Ahmad, Taslima Akter, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J Lee. 2022. Decaying Photos for Enhanced Privacy: User Perceptions Towards Temporal Redactions and'Trusted'Platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1-30.
Tejaswi Potluri and Venkata Krishna Kishore K. 2023. An automated online proctoring system using attentive-net to assess student mischievous behavior. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2023), 1-30.
Siddharth Ravi, Pau Climent-Pérez, and Francisco Florez-Revuelta. 2023. A review on visual privacy preservation techniques for active and assisted living. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2023), 1-41.
Jessica L Roberts. 2014. Protecting privacy to prevent discrimination. Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 56 (2014), 2097.
S Craig Roberts, Tamsin K Saxton, Alice K Murray, Robert P Burriss, Hannah M Rowland, and Anthony C Little. 2009. Static and dynamic facial images cue similar attractiveness judgements. Ethology 115, 6 (2009), 588-595.
Somdev Sangwan. 2023. One-click face swap. https://github.com/s0md3v/roop.
Simeon Schudy and Verena Utikal. 2017. 'You must not know about me'-On the willingness to share personal data. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 141 (2017), 1-13.
Valentin Schwind, Katrin Wolf, Niels Henze, and Oliver Korn. 2015. Determining the characteristics of preferred virtual faces using an avatar generator. In proceedings of the 2015 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. 221-230.
Neil Selwyn, Chris O'Neill, Gavin Smith, Mark Andrejevic, and Xin Gu. 2023. A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media International Australia 186, 1 (2023), 149-164.
Arnout Terpstra, Alwin De Rooij, and Alexander Schouten. 2023. Online Proctoring: Privacy Invasion or Study Alleviation? Discovering Acceptability Using Contextual Integrity. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-20.
William Thong, Przemyslaw Joniak, and Alice Xiang. 2023. Beyond skin tone: A multidimensional measure of apparent skin color. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 4903-4913.
Ruben Tolosana, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales, and Javier Ortega-Garcia. 2020. Deepfakes and beyond: A survey of face manipulation and fake detection. Information Fusion 64 (2020), 131-148.
Ehsan Ul Haque, Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan, and Md Abdullah Al Fahim. 2023. The Nuanced Nature of Trust and Privacy Control Adoption in the Context of Google. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-23.
André Calero Valdez and Martina Ziefle. 2019. The users' perspective on the privacy-utility trade-offs in health recommender systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 121 (2019), 108-121.
Xinrui Wang and Jinze Yu. 2020. Learning to cartoonize using white-box cartoon representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 8090-8099.
Sera Whitelaw, Mamas A Mamas, Eric Topol, and Harriette GC Van Spall. 2020. Applications of digital technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. The Lancet Digital Health 2, 8 (2020), e435-e440.
Skye Witley. 2023. Virtual Exam Case Primes Privacy Fight on College Room Scans. Bloomberg Law (25 Jan 2023). https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacyand-data-security/virtual-exam-case-primes-privacy-fight-over-collegeroom-scans
Rongbin Yang and Santoso Wibowo. 2022. User trust in artificial intelligence: A comprehensive conceptual framework. Electronic Markets 32, 4 (2022), 2053-2077.
Shiyu Yang, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A Scheufele, and Michael A Xenos. 2022. The science of YouTube: What factors influence user engagement with online science videos? Plos one 17, 5 (2022), e0267697.
Waheeb Yaqub, Manoranjan Mohanty, and Basem Suleiman. 2022. Privacy-Preserving Online Proctoring using Image-Hashing Anomaly Detection. In 2022 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC). IEEE, 1113-1118.
Deborah R Yoder-Himes, Alina Asif, Kaelin Kinney, Tiffany J Brandt, Rhiannon E Cecil, Paul R Himes, Cara Cashon, Rachel MP Hopp, and Edna Ross. 2022. Racial, skin tone, and sex disparities in automated proctoring software. In Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7. Frontiers, 881449.
Lin Yuan, Linguo Liu, Xiao Pu, Zhao Li, Hongbo Li, and Xinbo Gao. 2022. PRO-Face: A Generic Framework for Privacy-preserving Recognizable Obfuscation of Face Images. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 1661-1669.
Yan Zhuang. 2018. The performance cost of software obfuscation for Android applications. Computers & Security 73 (2018), 57-72.