The article did not explain how the device was used for cheating. I'm ready to assume that was his intent, but in what matter would it have been employed? Was he receiving answers from a third party? That seems easy to spot: just look for the guy who is reading the questions out loud.
Probably they should just have people go through a metal detector before the test, to identify all these hidden devices.
>Probably they should just have people go through a metal detector before the test, to identify all these hidden devices.
How would a metal detector stop it? If you say the metal detector is picking up a piece of shrapnel from an accident while young, how can they really disprove that?
The same way metal detectors work in other places, like airports: if you set off the detector for a valid medical reason, you should be prepared to show the card your doctor gave you attesting to this fact.
Implanted bluetooth devices is an edge case; so much so that it made the news. The normal case is people hiding devices in their clothes.
Anyway, I'm not sure whether it's considered unethical to help a patient electively implant a bluetooth receiver in their bodies, but falsely signing a medical release card probably is.
Probably they should just have people go through a metal detector before the test, to identify all these hidden devices.