[denton-scratch]

There's something schizophrenic about constructing a system for choosing who to investigate, while simultaneously trying to avoid discrimination.

The entire purpose of the chooser system is to discriminate between people; they want to investigate only those people likely to be cheating. If they really want to avoid discrimination, then they chould be choosing who to investigate using a straw-poll.

They have laws against certain kinds of discrimination, e.g. on the basis of race or gender. If those facts are used as input to the chooser, then race- and gender-discrimination is inevitable. There's not usually any protection against discrimination for e.g. being short, or having red hair, or speaking with a regional accent; I have no idea how such characteristics are correllated with cheating on welfare claims.

[Doxin]

The problem there is that protected attributes can often be inferred from unprotected ones. The dutch tax authority got into hot water due to discriminating based on name. Names are not protected, but when you start marking people with foreign sounding names as likely frauds something has gone awry.