Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification. In a few weeks, higher education students in Hong Kong will be sitting their online exams at home, or wherever they feel comfortable, with next to no invigilation. We may therefore expect to see some cases of cheating, the most commonly-used method being ghost writing. Institutions around the world, including the Graduate Management Admission Council (which runs the GMAT exam) and the College Board (which runs the SAT), have implemented online proctoring in recent years. Researchers have found evidence that it can reduce academic misconduct, but its effectiveness comes at the expense of personal privacy violation. If you search “online proctoring” via Google News, you will find pages of editorial content on student petitions against the use of automated proctoring tools. My employer has practically ruled out the use of remote proctoring services, unless it’s a request from a professional body such as Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Personally, I agree with this approach because everyone in Hong Kong, students included, is already stressed-out by the pandemic . Remote proctoring via these online tools – which record a video of test-takers via their webcams and detect what is open on their screens – will simply make students feel more anxious and uncomfortable. As with other forms of cheating, ghost writing can be difficult to detect if the ghost writer is careful in imitating the student’s use of language and is not too ambitious in trying to achieve a top mark. Of course we teachers will do our very best to act as the last line of defence, but I still believe the most effective deterrent against cheating is simply to promote the importance of academic honesty. After all, cheating is a much bigger risk for students than for the ghost writers. While universities can take little action against ghost writers, students can face serious disciplinary consequences. In the last lecture of my module, I always include the following quote as my appeal to students to refrain from engaging ghost writers for exams or assignments. “Even if your cheating attempt is successful in getting you a good grade without being detected, you are never at ease for the rest of your life because you know someone out there is holding evidence that can be used against you at any time in the future. It is not worth the risk. Not even close!” Roy Ying, senior lecturer in Department of Marketing, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong Leak of voter details is a gross breach of privacy I am writing to express my concern about how the Registration and Electoral Office has handled the serious breach of duty of one of its employees (“Hong Kong electoral office apologises after employee accidentally sends details of 15,000 voters to random email”, March 25 ). The employee had intended to send the voter details to her own email address, but forwarded it to an unknown recipient by mistake because she typed the wrong email address. Government officials have no right to transfer official information, especially files containing personal information, to their own email account. They must have already been taught the importance of protecting data privacy and upholding professional ethics, so there is really no excuse for this staff member to take such liberties. Moreover, how can the Registration and Electoral Office prove whether the mistake was made unintentionally? It is true that the office has apologised to the public, removed the employee from her duties and reported the matter to the police. But more serious action should be taken, such as terminating the contract of this employee and lodging a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data. The Registration and Electoral Office has informed the unknown recipient to delete all the files permanently and contact the office, but who can guarantee they will do so? If no one responds, what will the office do to ensure the personal data of 15,000 voters does not go viral? Grace Pow, Ho Man Tin Public feedback is neither quick nor always better In defending the need for public involvement in town planning decisions, Nigel Kat assumed such input leads to better options and greater satisfaction – but that is not always the case (“Proposed changes to town planning will push out the public and lead to poor decision-making”, March 22 ). The book The Paradox of Choice cites many examples where an abundance of options makes it harder for consumers to make a choice, leading to loss of convenience. If the feasibility of a plan has already been assessed by professional bodies, a consultation of public opinion can be done out of respect but need not take too long. Edmond Pang, Fanling