Today we launched a study into the use of algorithms by the ten largest municipalities in the Netherlands. It shows that the municipalities don't meet all the aspects of the GDPR. Therefore, we call for mandatory registration in the Algoritmeregister (Algorithm Register), a public register where government bodies can register the algorithms they have in use or had in use.

Low transparency

The inventory of which algorithms were in use at the municipalities we looked at, were clearly not in good shape. There was also very little experience with public accountability about the use of algorithms. Off the ten municipalities that got a Woo-request (a request under the Dutch Freedom of Information law) from Bits of Freedom, only the municipality of Nijmegen was able to fulfill the request within the statutory term of four weeks. All the other municipalities could not, or not within the statutory term, provide the existing documents about the processes surrounding the use of algorithms. This is unnacceptable, because transparency is one of the prerequisites of the GDPR. Therefore, the municipalities are not sufficiently enacting their lawful duties.

Furthermore, from the documents provided by the municipalities that did publish the requested documents - municipality Amsterdam, Utrecht, Groningen en Nijmegen - it appears that counsils cannot always justify the usage of an algorithm. This is worrisome. Municipalities have lots of data about citizens, and the temptation to apply new and advanced technologies to that data seems irresistible. But the context in which these technologies are deployed, matters. Municipalities seem to forget that citizens are not suspects by default.

Vulnerable groups

The research shows that the most complex and invasive algorithms and data analyses are often applied on vulnerable groups: people who receive financial assistance, inhabitants of the so-called "problem neighborhoods" and teenagers. The goal of the applications is mostly law enforcement. Providing support for the community is often portrayed as a secondary goal. It seems like this is done to legitimize the use of the algorithm, because in reality, not a lot gets done with the goals of providing support. Especially when vulnerable groups are involved, municipalities should take a good look at what the effect is of these invasive methods and if this aligns with the overarching goal of a municipality, which is taking care of its citizens.

Mitigating measures

Some municipalities are aware of the problems surrounding the use of algorithms, and have taken mitigating measures. The municipality of Groningen founded the Ethical Commision Data & Technology to get advice on the functioning of the algorithms they have in use. They also take into consideration the advice from this advisory body when deciding on whether to take a new technology into use.

The municipality of Utrecht has developed her own so called 'impact assessment', which means she does not only evaluate algorithms against the current law, but also against ethical frameworks. We do have to point out that both these municipalities could not provide us with this documentation within the statutory term.

Our advice

We think that all municipalities should actively perform impact assessments, including risk analyses of algorithms. We also call to make registration of high impact algorithms in the algorithm register, mandatory. This has already been discussed by the House of Representatives, but has not been made into legislation.

Lastly we advice municipalities to look at the bigger picture before choosing to use an algorithm, taking the perspective of citizens into consideration. What exactly is the problem that you are trying to solve with the use of algorithms as a municipality? And what are not only the direct, but also the indirect consequences of using an algorithm? Is the algorithm the most suited method to work on a certain problem or are there other ways? This is not taken into consideration enough. Municipalities have to map the use of algorithms in their organisation and be able to answer to their citizens.