{"id":450,"date":"2026-07-04T19:02:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-04T19:02:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/?p=450"},"modified":"2026-07-04T19:02:14","modified_gmt":"2026-07-04T19:02:14","slug":"netherlands-systeem-risico-indicatie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/netherlands-systeem-risico-indicatie\/","title":{"rendered":"Netherlands \u2014 Systeem Risico Indicatie"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","wpai_meta_description":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"affected_subject":[74,76],"country":[116],"judicial_forum":[114],"relevant_legal_instruments_artic":[118,117,107],"rights_involved":[],"thematica_area":[42,46,51],"class_list":["post-450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","affected_subject-digital-users-online-communities","affected_subject-general-public","country-the-netherlands","judicial_forum-ordinary-court","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-article-7-respect-for-private-and-family-life-secondary","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-article-8-protection-of-personal-data-secondary","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-article-8-right-to-respect-for-private-life-central","thematica_area-ai_surveillance_digital_rights","thematica_area-civil_society_ngos","thematica_area-gender_vulnerability_discrimination"],"acf":{"observation_unit":["Digital or Algorithmic Measure"],"role_in_the_chilling_effect":"Primary Source of Pressure","linked_records":"","country":[116],"geographic_area":["Europe","European Union","Council of Europe Area"],"year":2014,"event_date":null,"last_updated":null,"thematic_area":[42,46,51],"measure_type":["Administrative Rule","Administrative Measure","Surveillance or Data Collection","Digital or Algorithmic Measure","Mixed Measure"],"pressure_actor":"Government Executive","affected_subjects":[74,76],"rights_involved":false,"relevant_legal_instruments_and_articles":[117,118,107],"record_status":"Repealed or Withdrawn","case_outcome":"Measure Annulled or Limited","outcome_description":"The measure consisted of the Systeem Risico Indicatie, a government risk profiling system used to detect possible fraud in social security, income-dependent schemes, taxes and labour law. It enabled participating public authorities to combine and analyse large amounts of personal data in order to generate risk reports about individuals or legal persons considered worthy of further investigation. The District Court of The Hague later found that the SyRI legislation did not comply with Article 8 ECHR and declared it unlawful and without binding effect. This record assesses the restrictive measure itself. The separate linked judgment record should assess the protective judicial response.","judicial_response":"Court Annuls the Measure","judicial_forum":[114],"main_source":"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878","secondary_sources":"","source_type":[],"source_reliability":5,"overview":"This record concerns Systeem Risico Indicatie, a Dutch government risk profiling system used to detect possible fraud in areas such as social benefits, allowances, taxes and labour law. SyRI allowed public authorities to link and analyse data in order to generate risk notifications for further investigation. For the CHILL Atlas, the measure is relevant because algorithmic welfare fraud detection can create strong chilling pressure on people who depend on public services: individuals may become subject to hidden profiling, investigation or exclusion without knowing which data are used, how the risk model works, or how to effectively challenge the result. The District Court of The Hague later held that the SyRI legislation failed to comply with Article 8 ECHR because it lacked sufficient transparency, verifiability and safeguards. That judgment should be recorded separately as the protective judicial response.","barometer_status":"Complete Assessment","barometer_scope":"Measure Assessment","effect_on_chilling_pressure":"Increases Pressure","chilling_effect_level":"Very High","measure_intensity":5,"legal_uncertainty":"5","sanctioning_risk":2,"breadth_of_affected_subjects":5,"vulnerability_of_affected_subjects":5,"documented_deterrent_effect":3,"public_visibility_exemplary_effect":3,"replicability_of_the_measure":3,"surveillance_or_data_collection":5,"procedural_safeguards":0,"protective_judicial_response":0,"corrective_or_mitigating_effect":0,"barometer_source_reliability":5,"total_barometer_score":89,"barometer_confidence":"High","barometer_notes":"This assessment measures the restrictive impact of SyRI as a government risk profiling system, not the protective effect of the later judgment. The strongest restrictive indicators are measure intensity, legal uncertainty, breadth of affected subjects, vulnerability of affected subjects, replicability and surveillance or data collection. The system increases chilling pressure because opaque welfare fraud profiling can make people dependent on public services feel continuously exposed to hidden scrutiny, risk classification and investigation. Protective indicators are set to 0 because the District Court judgment should be assessed in a separate linked record.","presence_of_ai":"Yes","role_of_ai":["Risk Scoring"],"automation_level":"Medium","human_oversight":"Unknown","data_type_used":"Sensitive Data","ai_act_relevance":"High","environmental_context":[],"economic_actor_involved":[],"corporate_accountability_connection":["Not Assessed"],"aarhus_convention_connection":["Not Assessed"],"enable_chill_scoring":true,"record_direction":false,"scoring_record_type":false,"case_family_id":"","linked_restrictive_measure":null,"linked_corrective_decision":null,"evidence_confidence":"medium","coercive_severity":0,"protected_activity_nexus":0,"reach_replicability":0,"deterrence_visibility":0,"duration_and_persistence":0,"vulnerability_power_asymmetry":0,"ai__data_opacity":0,"remedy_strength":0,"rights_based_reasoning":0,"generalizability_precedent":0,"implementation_compliance":0,"procedural_safeguards_created":0,"timeliness":0,"watchdog_vulnerable_protection":0,"linkage_multiplier":1,"implementation_multiplier":1,"safeguards_reducing_chilling_pressure":[],"manual_safeguard_deduction":0,"pressure_cap":100,"protection_cap":100,"enable_manual_score_override":false,"chilling_pressure_score_raw":0,"chilling_pressure_score_final":0,"protective_correction_score_raw":0,"effective_protection_score":0,"final_chill_score":0,"final_score_label":false,"score_explanation":"","main_evidence_for_score":"","scoring_uncertainty":false,"scoring_version":"low : Low uncertainty medium : Medium uncertainty high : High uncertainty","last_scoring_review":null},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/450","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=450"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/450\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":451,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/450\/revisions\/451"}],"acf:term":[{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"judicial_forum","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/judicial_forum\/114"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/107"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/118"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/117"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"affected_subject","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject\/76"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"affected_subject","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject\/74"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/51"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/46"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/42"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"country","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country\/116"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"affected_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"judicial_forum","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/judicial_forum?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"rights_involved","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved?post=450"},{"taxonomy":"thematica_area","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area?post=450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}