[einpoklum]

I don't understand the article.

Suppose they had an algorithm for computing a risk score. Ok, so someone is determined to have a "high risk score". That doesn't mean that they've done anything wrong; at most, it means prioritizing them for closer scrutiny. That could still be discriminatory (e.g. focus on Turkish/Moroccan immigrants), but in itself - it's not supposed to lose anyone their benefits.

Also, the article says:

> Citizens had no way of ... defending themselves.

Why could they not sue the tax authorities in court, asking the court to order the tax authorities to withdraw their payment demands? If there was no evidence of them having evaded taxes, I mean.

[mtts]

High risk score means you’re under scrutiny. Once you’re under scrutiny every minor thing that goes wrong or is unclear is by default assumed to be fraud and you get slapped with (often outrageously high) fines, payable immediately. You can only appeal after the fact, so you’re drowning in debt even before the first judge looks at your case.

That is assuming a judge gets anywhere near your case. This often didn’t happen because access to the law is made extremely difficult in the Netherlands (on purpose). The people this affected mostly did not have the skills to find their way in the Dutch legal system so they were ruined.

All of this is by design, by the way: the system assumes ill will by default, spends an inordinate amount of resources on detecting it and punishes it severely all because being tough on fraud polls well.