The subcommission concludes that data-driven profiling and automated risk selection by government organisations have increased significantly in recent years, while multiple cases demonstrate that these practices lead to discrimination against large groups of citizens, with serious consequences for individuals and society. Supervisory bodies such as the Dutch Data Protection Authority and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights have repeatedly pointed to unlawful and discriminatory data processing, as well as to the growing complexity introduced by algorithms and AI. Despite this, the government has continued its profiling practices.

Ghebreab explains that government organisations have come to view data-driven profiling as an efficient form of enforcement: identifying large numbers of offenders with limited capacity. This perception is reinforced by political pressure to tackle fraud and by the need to keep large government systems manageable. A broad techno-optimism about the potential of AI and data plays a role in this, but carries risks when critical reflection is absent. The societal context is also relevant: a hardening climate around fraud and abuse of social provisions, partly fuelled by incidents such as the so-called ‘Bulgarian fraud’ case in 2013, led to stricter oversight practices in which the risks of discrimination were insufficiently recognised.

The consequences of these practices have proven to be very significant. The childcare benefits scandal is the most striking example, in which factors including nationality were used to determine who was considered high-risk and subjected to intensive scrutiny. In addition, checks on student housing allowances by DUO revealed that students with a migration background were more frequently selected for inspection. Such practices have a substantial impact on people’s lives, financially, socially and psychologically. Ghebreab emphasises that these examples are likely only the tip of the iceberg, as much profiling takes place outside the view of citizens in systems that are not transparent to them. Transparency and registration of these systems by the government remains insufficient, leaving it unclear how often and in what manner profiling is applied.

The subcommission characterises profiling as an expanding and difficult-to-contain phenomenon, with the government frequently acting pragmatically in practice. Assessed against the principles of the rule of law, democratic legitimacy and good governance, the commission considers this situation untenable and calls for principled measures to prevent further harm.