Dutch language

How to pronounce registry in Dutch?

Full Transcript

I want to start with a fragment from the TV doc Digital Labyrinth. We will meet Hans.
I got a call from my notary. I visited him a few days before, together with my girl friend to draft a contract.
He said; 'You have been at my office and told me you don't have children on your name. Is that correct?'
Yes that is correct, I don’t have any children on my name registered.
'Ok, well', he said, 'that is not what is registered in the system. In the official records a child is attached to you.'
To you? - Yes.
Yes, Hans did have a child, Chris, attached to his name in the official records.
It was just an invalid entry in the system, by a civil servant.
And you would probably think, ‘let’s just delete it. It’s a mistake and mistakes can happen.’
But that is not how the systems of the public administration work.
Because this Chris remained registered in the file of Hans, but was declared “incorrect”.
According to the public servants, otherwise the system would no longer be correct.
So, there he was; having a child registered on his name.
But what if he hadn’t discovered this? And passed away?
Is it possible that Chris would be the inheritor of Hans?
These kind of mistakes that fascinate me a lot.
I am a researcher at Leiden University and worked for years as a civil servant for the government.
There I saw how the systems function and how they don’t.
So I study computer decisions.
Computer decisions are decisions that are made by the computer.
Not by a human. This implies several differences with human reasoning, I will get back to that later.
I chose to study computer decisions because I worked at the Benefits Office of Dutch Tax Administration.
These benefits are established by computers.That’s inescapable, the amount of decisions is enormous.
But sometimes I got the feeling: 'huh, is this really correct?'
For example citizens who claimed to be divorced, sent in official documents to prove it...
...but the fact couldn’t be retraced in one of the many systems.
Or a citizen who had Dutch Nationality for years due to naturalization.
He was told each year he wasn’t entitled to benefits because according to the system...
...his stay in the Netherlands was unlawful.
I wanted to know more about these computers. How do they function?
And does the administrative judge intervene as was the intention of the General Administrative Law Act?
Well, being a lawyer it is extremely cool to use a chart because that’s not what a lawyer normally does...
...but we can find the origin of automation back in the seventies.
The economy was doing well in the seventies and a lot of people could afford a car.
In 10 years, between 1966-1976 the number of cars doubled.
This was a big question for the government.
How would the tax administration levy the motor vehicle tax of all these individuals? They had to automate.
50 years later, this has lead to the situation that many government decisions are made by a computer.
They decisions are mostly about money: you get money from the government or you have to pay them.
A speeding fine for instance.
If we look at those decisions, you will probably know them: social and child benefits, dog tax...
...estate property tax and student loans, the number of decisions that are made by the computer still increases.
I had to learn a lot before I could do my research. For instance: what can be registered in a database?
It's not a dossier, the one that lawyers like to have, but a database is formed by a limited set of data.
And I had to learn more on chain systems and networks because the Dutch government works with chains.
This means that data from one database is distributed to another database from another administration.
This administration reacts on this information by making a decision and it all is interlinked.
This is very convenient: it means you don’t have to give your personal information time and time again.
But if something goes wrong, it goes seriously wrong.
A chain system works as follows. Suppose you have outgrown your dorm.
So you’ll rent a flat and being a tenant you want to ask for a housing benefit.
You apply for it online, you’ll fill in the form with your data and this is received by the government.
They’ll look at information already registered, for instance at the municipality.
Then the computer does its job and then it produces a decision. It says; yes you are entitled to housing benefit.
But what if the people who used to live in your new home didn’t change their address?
The computer decides: more people living in one house means they should have enough money to pay the rent.
Again you will receive a decision but now it says: you are not entitled to housing benefit.
And now you probably think, well this is The Netherlands, all is taken care of, I’ll just file an objection.
I’ll have 6 weeks to file it and I’ll tell them the decision is incorrect because they used incorrect data.
Ideally it would work like this: you file the objection, the administration will study it, you’ll receive a new decision.
Unfortunately, it is not that easy. In The Netherlands the design is completely different.
In The Netherlands we work with key registers.
In this case this means that you may file an objection against the decision but this is useless.
You have to go to the key register of population, which is held by the local municipality.
So, they must send you away. As is shown in this graphic.
Working with computer decisions does have some benefits.
Like the equality principle. All equals should be treated equally.
So when I ask something of the government it shouldn’t make a difference if I am acting kindly or rude.
The decision has to be the same. Even if it is late in the Friday afternoon...
...and the civil servant wants to go home and to turn down all applications; it is not allowed.
Whether or not you are famous, the outcome always has to be the same. Even if you were Madonna!
And yes, even Madonna knows what it is like to have problems with the government.
This is how she looks when she has an argument with the customs service of Portugal.
Thats why using the computer can be nice, it doesn’t make distinctions.
All it needs is a number.
And with this number it can start calculating, it just does his job and wants to work every hour of the day.
So we can say we found a good way of solving arbitrary decisions.
Another benefit is that you can collect all the available knowledge and put it in the computer.
You ask your best public servants everything there is to know and then program their routines.
So the systems knows more ways to perform than a single public servant.
A big advantage of computerized execution to the law.
But there down sides as well. My research shows some disadvantages.
For instance the fact that the reasoning of a computer differs a lot from human reasoning.
The computer needs black/white language. it needs numerals.
'If this and this then that and that.' It’s what the computer does in complex decision trees.
Human reasoning is different. Let alone legal reasoning.
So when they write an Act, lawyers like to use language that is somewhat imprecise.
They want to build in some flexibility. Because they want to leave it up to the implementation of the Act.
Words like these you’ll find a lot in Acts. ‘To the circumstances’, ’to a reasonable degree’ or ’largely’.
The computer is unable to work with these lines. The computer needs to know how ‘largely’ is determined.
For example largely in one year; does it mean 60% of the days in one year? Or 70? Or 90?
The programmer needs a hard numeral. This way, the flexibility in the Act is lost once it is programmed.
From then on it has become a hard standard.
The strange thing is, that we can’t check how these systems are programmed.
In my research I haven't received documents that show how the computer is instructed.
In fact, the highest administrative court has ruled that government should always offer clarity...
...in the way the machine makes its decision.
In practice however, this is not what the government does.
This means that we can’t verify how the Act is interpreted and translated in code.
Let alone verify if the code consists mistakes or unintended discriminatory rules.
We can’t research this.
Another disadvantage is the One Size Fits All approach.
They always program the main rule, even design the Act like that.
Main purpose is almost always; as less exemptions as possible.
So the reasoning we all know, that the exception confirms the rule, is not implemented in computers.
Let me illustrate this one size fits all approach by telling you about Anouk, actually her father.
Anouk is a severely impaired girl and her father has a special wheel chair van.
On one day she is very ill and has to be brought to the emergency room as quick as possible.
The ambulance arrives and the driver decides it would be safer...
to drive Anouk to the ER in her own adjusted van instead of using the ambulance.
So they speed in a queue, the ambulance driver behind the wheel of the wheel chair van, to the hospital.
The computer observes a van speeding and it compares the license plate with the data of the owner.
Next, it sends a fine.
Now you think, well this is The Netherlands, the father can use legal remedies to fight the decision.
And that’s what the father did. However, the government decided the fine was justified.
Eventually this lead to angry reactions in The Netherlands.
The ambulance driver complained on Facebook.
The media found it and then the government rushed to quash the speed fine.
It shows that the One Size Fits All Approach doesn’t only effect the computer...
but influences the entire organization in thinking black and white.
Another disadvantage is that governmental agencies depend heavily on each others data.
A lot of data are transferred on a daily basis, very impressive...
...but it means as well that we don’t have one accountable organization.
Every part of government, every single public agency, is partly accountable for a small piece.
Once it goes wrong, it’s impossible to held one agency responsible.
You can’t call one agency for account, for instance in court.
You’ll need all the other agencies too. This means; nobody is accountable.
Connected with this observation is the impact of mistakes.
In good times the system is wonderful, but in bad times, it is disastrous.
This is because every mistake is propagated.
They don’t stay in one system.
One mistake in one database can be dealt with, but not when the mistake is send to all kinds of agencies.
Let’s suppose you are moving.
You inform the local government but for one reason or another it isn’t processed well.
So a wrong address is registered in this important key register.
Within 24 hours this new entry is spread to other agencies.
Now, every computer in every other agency will start buzzing as well.
Worst case scenario will be that you will loose housing benefit...
...get into problems with the study loan organization and all kinds of taxes, several issues you must try to rectify.
As we previously saw, this is how it is supposed to work.
You are supposed to go to the source, the key registry.
Probably you don't know what key registry caused it or which agency to address but this is how it is organized.
That’s why this results in the next disadvantage of this routine.
It’s that the judge as well has become stuck in the system.
Iit is part of the law that public administrations that use data are not allowed to change wrong data.
They have to refer the citizens to another agency.
And if you don’t agree with a decision that is based on wrong data from a key register, the judge can’t help you either.
The judge has to follow the legal rules too and will refer you to the key registry.
So the judge himself is stuck in the system too.
This shows how we all have become a number for our government.
At the same time this is the disadvantage and conclusion of my research; human scale has vanished.
We became a number and when we don’t want that. We want to be seen and get attention.
Because our situation is very special or we have a question.
We are no longer seen as a human being but as a number.
So what if the government starts working with big data?
If public administration uses the data we are talking about to predict that you are likely to commit fraud?
That is how they work at the moment.
Or your personal data are tagged because there is a change you end up having a dysfunctional family?
These are matters that make you think we should first learn lessons from the current situation...
...to prevent things getting worse when using big data.
Personally, I think we should learn that systems are limited in their capabilities...
...and not directly think of wonderful solutions.
It is such a waste hearing experts say that a computer will be capable of deciding in 80% of the cases...
...but in the 20% of the cases the government should let human public servants decide.
The government totally ignores this once the system is purchased, and cuts back on staff to lower the costs.
I also think we should be better in doubting the system; we allocate a certain authority to what is on the screen.
Finally, I think we shouldn't be sent around among public agencies to see our problem fixed.
Now it is the burden for individuals that government has designed a complex cooperation.
We are better off if we could turn to one single office.
I think that if we learn from all this, big data can benefit us all...
...once the government gets better insights and can do good.
I hope they use it to make bike paths or build skate parks...
...and that they won’t use their data to zoom in on us citizens.
Thank you.