Internet shutdowns during school exams are becoming routine in more countries. The official explanation is usually simple: stop cheating, protect exam integrity, and keep leaked answers from circulating online.
But the policy choice is much less convincing when you look at the evidence and the blast radius. Access Now’s #NoExamShutdown campaign argues that governments have not shown that exam shutdowns actually prevent cheating. What is repeatable, however, is the harm: millions of people disconnected, businesses disrupted, essential services harder to reach, and basic rights restricted for people who have nothing to do with the exams.
Aria đź“Š view: this is a governance problem disguised as a technical fix. If an education system can only protect exams by cutting communications for an entire city, region, or country, the failure is not the internet. It is the policy design.
What the #NoExamShutdown campaign is saying#
Access Now is calling on governments to end internet shutdowns during national school exams “once and for all” and to keep the internet open, secure, and free during exams and beyond.
The campaign’s central claim has two parts.
First, shutdowns are disproportionate. They restrict communication, access to information, work, public participation, and emergency coordination. Even when authorities describe them as temporary, limited, or necessary, the effect is still a rights restriction imposed on the general public.
Second, Access Now says there is no evidence that these shutdowns are effective at preventing cheating. That matters because shutdowns are not low-cost experiments. They create predictable disruption across society. When the claimed benefit is unproven and the harm is immediate, the policy case becomes very weak.
The campaign also treats platform blocking as part of the same problem. Some governments avoid full network shutdowns and instead block messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Telegram, or other communication platforms during exam periods. That may sound narrower, but it still interferes with people’s ability to communicate, work, report, organize, and stay informed.
The harm spreads far beyond exam rooms#
Exam shutdowns are often framed as if they only affect students and exam monitors. In reality, connectivity is a public infrastructure layer. When it is cut or degraded, the effects move quickly beyond schools.
Common impacts include:
- businesses losing sales, orders, and payment access;
- workers being unable to coordinate jobs or receive assignments;
- families losing contact during important hours;
- journalists and civil society groups facing reporting barriers;
- people struggling to access essential services and time-sensitive information;
- communities becoming more vulnerable during emergencies, conflict, or health crises.
The harm is especially severe in places where mobile internet is the primary way people connect. A shutdown of mobile data is not a small inconvenience there. It can mean no banking app, no ride-hailing, no delivery coordination, no messaging, no online forms, no access to updated public information, and no reliable connection to distant relatives.
This is why Access Now frames exam shutdowns as collective punishment. The alleged misconduct of some students is used to justify restrictions on millions of people who are not involved in the exams at all.
Where the campaign sees the pattern in 2025#
Access Now reports that in 2025, six countries in the Middle East and Africa continued exam-related shutdowns, with 11 exam-related shutdowns in total. The key concern is normalization: once a government reaches for shutdowns during one exam season, the measure can become routine administrative practice.
Iraq: repeated disruptions and app blocking#
Access Now describes Iraq as one of the countries most associated with exam-related shutdowns. The campaign says authorities have repeatedly cut connectivity during national exams that span several weeks, affecting millions of people again and again.
It also reports blocking of messaging applications such as WhatsApp and Telegram during exam periods. This matters because app blocking is sometimes presented as a softer alternative to full shutdowns. From a rights perspective, however, it still restricts communication and access to information.
Access Now’s recommendation for Iraq is to stop “pulling the plug” and instead invest in evidence-based, proportionate, rights-respecting measures to secure exams while preserving the right to stay connected.
Algeria: recurring restrictions during major exams#
The campaign says Algeria has normalized connectivity disruptions during major exam windows, including BEM and BAC exams. According to Access Now, mobile internet has been cut for hours each day during these periods.
The predictable result is nationwide disruption: businesses slow down, services become harder to access, and ordinary communication is interrupted. For Access Now, the demand is straightforward: protect exam integrity without violating fundamental rights, and keep the internet on.
Syria: a test for new leadership#
Access Now says Syria has often cut mobile internet access for hours each day during exams, and that the practice continued in 2025 after the change in leadership following the fall of the Assad regime at the end of 2024.
That makes exam shutdowns a political signal as well as a technical restriction. Continuing the practice suggests continuity with old methods of control. Ending it would indicate a shift toward a more rights-respecting approach to public administration.
Jordan: app blocking is still a rights issue#
The campaign reports that Jordanian authorities reversed course in 2024 and 2025 by blocking messaging applications during Tawjihi exams. Access Now calls this harmful and disproportionate.
The broader point is important: the issue is not only full internet blackouts. Blocking specific apps can still interfere with lawful communication, reporting, work, and family life. A narrower restriction is not automatically a legitimate one.
Sudan and Kenya: crisis context and platform controls#
In Sudan, Access Now places exam restrictions in the context of conflict, humanitarian emergency, and health crisis. In such conditions, connectivity can be essential for safety, information, and survival. Cutting access during exams may increase risk for people already facing severe instability.
In Kenya, the campaign says authorities have blocked countrywide access to Telegram during national secondary school exams. Access Now describes this as disproportionate and rights-restricting, and calls for an end to the pattern.
Across these examples, the details vary. The pattern does not: exam integrity is used to justify broad communication controls, while evidence of effectiveness remains thin.
Why anti-cheating shutdowns fail the policy test#
A rights-respecting policy should pass at least three tests: evidence, necessity, and proportionality.
On evidence, Access Now’s campaign is blunt: there is no evidence that shutdowns prevent cheating. Governments may claim they reduce leaks or stop answer-sharing, but a claim is not the same as proof. A serious policy should define the problem, measure outcomes, and compare options.
On necessity, authorities should show why network-wide disruption is required. If the concern is cheating inside exam halls, then the controls should target exam halls, exam papers, invigilation, device rules, distribution channels, and accountability systems. Disconnecting an entire population is a sign that the measure is not narrowly tailored.
On proportionality, the harm must be weighed against the benefit. Even a short scheduled outage can interrupt commerce, emergency coordination, remote work, medical communication, transport, and public reporting. If the benefit is unproven and the harm is broad, the measure fails.
There is also a longer-term governance cost. Repeated shutdowns train institutions to treat connectivity as a switch that can be turned off for administrative convenience. Today the reason may be exams. Tomorrow it may be protests, elections, labor unrest, or public criticism. Normalization is part of the danger.
Practical takeaways: what to demand instead#
Access Now’s source material does not provide a detailed technical checklist for exam security alternatives. But it does set a clear standard: measures should be evidence-based, proportionate, and rights-respecting.
If a government proposes an exam-period shutdown or platform block, these are the questions to ask:
- What evidence shows this restriction prevents cheating?
- How will success be measured, and will the results be made public?
- Why are targeted exam security controls insufficient?
- Which rights will be limited, for whom, and for how long?
- What legal authority permits the restriction?
- What independent oversight exists before, during, and after the measure?
- What safeguards prevent expansion beyond the exam period?
- What compensation or remedy exists for people harmed by the disruption?
Rights-respecting alternatives should focus on the actual exam process rather than the whole network. That can include better paper handling, secure printing and distribution, controlled device policies at exam centers, trained invigilators, randomized exam materials, strong accountability for leaks, and transparent investigation of cheating networks.
For civil society, journalists, and affected users, documentation is essential. Access Now asks people to share stories of being impacted by exam-related blackouts. Those accounts help show what official language hides: lost income, missed services, blocked reporting, family stress, and the real cost of “temporary” restrictions.
For everyday users, the practical lesson is preparation. If your country has a history of exam shutdowns, save key information offline, keep alternative contact plans, download important documents in advance, and monitor trusted digital rights groups for updates. A VPN can help in some cases of platform blocking, but it cannot restore access when the underlying network is fully disconnected. That distinction matters.
Conclusion: keep exams secure, keep the internet on#
The #NoExamShutdown campaign challenges a policy that is becoming too easy for governments to repeat: cut connectivity and call it exam security.
Access Now’s argument is clear. The effectiveness of exam shutdowns is unproven, while the harms are predictable and widespread. These measures restrict rights, disrupt economies, and disconnect people who have no connection to exam cheating.
Exam integrity matters. But it should be protected with targeted, measurable, rights-respecting controls—not nationwide or regional communication restrictions. The better standard is simple: secure the test, not silence society.