Skip to main content

Profiling ‘Anomalies’ and the Anomalies of Profiling: Digitalized Risk Assessments of Dutch Youth and the New European Data Protection Regime

  • 772 Accesses

Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (ISDP,volume 35)

Abstract

A key component of the proposed data protection rules outlined in the General Data Protection Regulation SeeAlsoSeeAlsoGDPR (GDPR SeeAlsoSeeAlsoGeneral Data Protection Regulation ) is that any measures based solely on automated data processing that have legal effects on ‘natural persons’, including children, count as ‘profiling ’. Currently, the digitalized profiling of children in Dutch child-care policies has gradually gained prominence in efforts to detect or prevent child abuse and anti-social or delinquent behaviour. This chapter analyses how the proposed data protection rules will impact the current practices of profiling children and creating individualized risk assessments in the Netherlands. To illustrate the problems raised by such profiling, this paper analyses the professional use of three profiling registries: the Dutch Digital Youth Healthcare Registry , the Reference Index of High-Risk Youth , and the ProKid SI 12-system. Investigating the negative implications of the use of these and determining how these implications can be addressed by legal means is crucial to striking a proper balance between the interests of society, privacy and data protection, and individual children and families. Although each registry is meant to prevent problems and serve the ‘best interests’ of children and society, their use produces new risks, including the possibility for erroneous criminal prognosis, stigmatization, and discrimination. By drawing upon empirical data and legal analysis, this paper argues that the use of these technologies by authorities and healthcare providers in the Netherlands will challenge new data protection provisions and that it is therefore necessary to reframe the data protection regime to better protect “the best interest of the child” as established by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Keywords

  • Risk Profile
  • Data Protection
  • Data Subject
  • Youth Care
  • Dutch Government

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-48342-9_7
  • Chapter length: 32 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-48342-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    By children, I mean in this article all persons between 0 and 23 years. This is a practical choice. I simply followed the definition used by the Reference Index High-Risk Youth, which uses the broadest age definition for a child among the three systems analysed here. Therefore, by this term I mean children assessed by any of the three systems.

  2. 2.

    The Minister of Youth and Family: André Rouvoet explained in an interview (Van Wijck 2009), that during his 13 year carrier being an MP he experienced no discussion on the topic of child abuse, therefore how glad he was that the topic was finally put on the top of political agendas.

  3. 3.

    Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens 2000 (Data Protection Act) Retrieved on 10th August 2014, from <http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011468>.

  4. 4.

    Controversies around these systems also provide reasons for thorough analysis. For instance, the Dutch government’s ability to safeguard transparency and the proper protection of personal data had already been raised as focal points for investigation in light of such IDM systems SeeSeeidentity management system (Klingenberg and Lindeboom 2013). These issues raise further controversies as to how to orchestrate legally, administratively and technically the preventive profiling of children in each of these sectors. Controversies also surround the vividly disputed potential negative implications the transition in the youth care and law enforcement sector might cause, as well as the government’s increasing push to exchange data (Goedee and Rijkers 2010) across sectors.

  5. 5.

    As of January 2015 Bureau Youthcare organizations are abolished and their tasks are taken over by other certified youth care organizations and the municipalities.

  6. 6.

    As of January 2015 Bureau Youthcare organizations do not exist in their old form anymore in The Netherlands. Due to the decentralization process in youth care, the tasks earlier performed by Bureau Youthcare had been redivided and redistributed between newly certified youth care organizations and city halls.

  7. 7.

    Despite a newly emerging trend where online profiling gains importance, the risk profiling of children by Dutch government technologies such as the Digital Youth Healthcare Registry, the Reference Index High Risk Youth and the ProKid 12–SI system occur against an already defined set of criteria, and those criteria should be set by standards in healthcare, youth care or law enforcement in The Netherlands. Each match between a profile and a child is regularly nominative and shows that a child is associated by name to a risk category.

  8. 8.

    Elektronisch Kinddossier eind 2010 ingevoerd <http://webwereld.nl/beveiliging/42055-elektronisch-kinddossier-eind-2010-ingevoerd#>.

  9. 9.

    Each category definition emerges as natural or innocent to the person it characterizes, yet when personal attributes captured within categories become benchmarks upon which decisions of exclusion or inclusion are made, the BDS categories can also be seen as ‘carriers’ of certain selective politics.

  10. 10.

    For more information about this, please see: <http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Overzicht-nieuws/Nieuwsbericht/39762/KNMG-Elektronisch-Kinddossier-niet-te-breed-toegankelijk-maken.htm>.

  11. 11.

    Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie (2012), 29 279 Rechtsstaat en Rechtsorde Nr. 147 Brief van de minister van veiligheid en justitie aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Den Haag.

  12. 12.

    Brief van de Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie over het ‘EU-voorstel: Richtlijn bescherming persoonsgegevens bij gebruik door politiële en justitiële autoriteiten (COM(2012)10) en EU-voorstel Verordening algemeen kader bescherming persoonsgegevens (COM(2012)11)’ (2013).

  13. 13.

    Part of the empirical data in this article can also be found in La Fors-Owczynik and Valkenburg (2015). Part of empirical data concerning ProKid can also be found in La Fors-Owczynik (2015).

  14. 14.

    For this prescription, see ECJ, Luxembourg, 13 May 2014, C-131/12.

  15. 15.

    The financial steering of risk registration in the Reference Index High-Risk Youth is not a nationwide phenomenon, but it depends on the choices local governments make.

  16. 16.

    Certainly, this observation only applies to the specific city where the interviewee coordinated and managed the registration of risk signals by all partner organizations linked to the system.

  17. 17.

    In the Netherlands, municipalities maintain the addresses of all their inhabitants through central registries.

  18. 18.

    This phenomenon has been raised as a problem by 2/3 of the interviewed youth healthcare professionals.

  19. 19.

    About further descriptions of colour codes in ProKid please see: Abraham et al. (2011, DSP-groep).

  20. 20.

    In 2007 to facilitate collaboration between the Dutch police and Bureau Youthcare, a flagship organization within Dutch youth care, which collaboration also forms the basis for ProKid: “Early identification and referral” policy had been introduced. About this, see more in: Goedee and Rijkers (2010, Ministerie van Jeugd en Gezin).

  21. 21.

    The interviews that provided empirical material for this article were conducted before 2015. As of January 2015, as a consequence of the administrative reorganization of Dutch youth care Bureau Youthcare organizations do not exist anymore, but their tasks are redistributed to municipalities and newly certified agencies of youth care. The police share its concerns in relation to children with other parties according to the new set-up of the organizations in charge of youth care.

  22. 22.

    As the interviews demonstrated drawing random correlations in ProKid is possible, because the technological settings allow for a rather horizontal—information visible on more children—view of children and because the system promotes professionals to take up digitally depicted issues which they see as providing better prevention.

  23. 23.

    The Basic Facility for Forensic Investigation (BFFI, or Basisvoorziening Opsporing in Dutch) is a law enforcement database of the Dutch police, where a variety of observations of police officers are registered.

  24. 24.

    See about this the Individual Healthcare Professions Act (Wet op de beroepen in de individuele gezondheidszorg, 1993) which entails confidentiality requirements for professionals about how to share patients’ data, or the Act on Medical Treatment Contacts Act (Wet Geneeskundige Behandelingsovereenkomst, 1994) which entails prescriptions about accessing patients’ files.

  25. 25.

    DOSA organisations have a helicopter view of youth care related organizations and professionals and are notified about each risk signal and match registered in RI. DOSA professionals are not responsible for solving cases but for only assisting other professionals in solving them.

  26. 26.

    Recital 29 of the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union (15 December 2015).

References

  • Abraham, M., Buysee, W., Loef, L., & Van Dijk, B. (2011). Pilots ProKid Signaleringsinstrument 12- geëvalueerd Pilots ProKid Signaleringsinstrument 12- geëvalueerd. DSP-Groep, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoist, E. (2008). Collecting Data for the Profiling of Web Users. In Hildebrandt, M. & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Profiling the European citizen Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 169–184). Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, M. R., Van den Brink, Y. N., de Jong – de Kruijf, M. P., Olthof, I. W. M., & Van der Zon, K. A. M. (2012). KINDERRECHTENMONITOR 2012 - Adviezen aan de Kinderombudsman -. Den Haag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canhoto, A., & Backhouse, J. (2008). General description of the definition of profiling. In Profiling the European citizen Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBP. (2007). Brief aan de Minister van Jeugd en Gezin. Retrieved on 23/02/2010 from https://cbpweb.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/th_dossier/ano071029_brief_rouvoet_inzake_verbreding_ekd.pdf.

  • Costa, L., & Poullet, Y. (2012). Privacy and the regulation of 2012. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(3), 254–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P. (2008). Identity management of e-ID, privacy and security in Europe. A human rights view. Information Security Technical Report, 13(2), 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P., & Papakonstantinou, V. (2012). The proposed data protection Regulation replacing Directive 95/46/EC: A sound system for the protection of individuals. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 130–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, K. (2010). Identity, profiling algorithms and a world of ambient intelligence. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(1), 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (trans. by A. S. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2004). Securité, territoire, population, Cours au College de France, 1978-79. Paris: Seuill/Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedee, J., & Rijkers, A. (2010). Zorgsignalen van de Politie Over het “Vroegsignaleren en doorverwijzen” tussen Politie en Bureau Jeugdzorg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, D., & Citron, D. (2013). The Right to Quantitative Privacy. Minnesota Law Review, 98, 62–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwirth, S. (2009). Beyond identity? Identity in the Information Society, 1(1), 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henman, J. (2004). Targeted! Population Segmentation, Electronic Surveillance and Governing the Unemployed in Australia. International Sociology, 19(2), 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. (2008). Defining Profiling: A New Type of Knowledge? In M. Hildebrandt & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Profiling the European citizen Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogstrate, A. J., & Veenman, C. J. (2012). Informatiegestuurde grenscontrole Verkenning ten behoeve van het gebruik van selectieprofielen in het kader van grensbeheer. Den Haag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, G. (2012). A General Data Protection Regulation for Europe? Light and shade in the Commission’s draft of 25 January 2012. SCRIPTed, 9(1), 64–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, Y. J. F. M., & de Bont, A. A. (2010). The role of screenings methods and risk profile assessments in prevention and health promotion programmes: an ethnographic analysis. Health Care Analysis : HCA : Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 18(4), 389–401. Retrieved on 22/11/2012 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2970818&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.

  • Keymolen, E., & Broeders, D. (2011). Innocence Lost : Care and Control in Dutch Digital Youth Care, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keymolen, E., & Prins, C. (2011). Jeugdzorg via systemen. De Verwijsindex Risicojongeren als spin in een digitaal vangnet. In D. Broeders, C. M. K. C. Cuijpers, & J. E. J. Prins (Eds.), De staat van informatie. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, A. M., & Lindeboom, J. (2013). Lost in e-government: bevat de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming voldoende waarborgen voor burgers bij gegevensverwerking door de overheid? Privacy & Informatie, 8, 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, B. (2014). The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law, 4(4), 250–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, B., & Leenes, R. (2005). “Code” and the Slow Erosion of Privacy. Michigan Telecommunication and Technology Law Review, 115–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuner, C. (2012). The European Commission’s Proposed Data Protection Regulation: A Copernican Revolution in European Data Protection Law. Privacy and Security Law Report. Retrieved on 12/12/2013 from http://amcham.dk/files/editor/Data_privacy_-_Kuner_EU_regulation_article.pdf.

  • La Fors-Owczynik, K. (2015). Minor protection or major injustice? Children’s rights and digital preventions directed at youth in the Dutch justice system. Computer Law and Security Review, 31(5), 651–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Fors-Owczynik, K., & Valkenburg, G. (2015). Risk identities: constructing actionable problems in Dutch youth. In I. Van der Ploeg & J. Pridmore (Eds.), Digitizing Identities: Doing Identity in a Networked World. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, R. (2010). Context Is Everything Sociality and Privacy in Online Social Network Sites. In M. Bezzi, P. Duquenoy, S. Fischer-Hübner, M. Hansen, & G. Zhang (Eds.), Privacy and identity management for life (pp. 48–65). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, N., & Meints, M. (2008). Profiling in Employment Situations (Fraud). In M. Hildebrandt & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Profiling the European citizen Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 217–237). Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society. Monitoring everyday life. Open University Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: surveillance, risk and digital discrimination. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (ed.) (2006). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Willan Publishing, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manders-Huits, N. (2010). Practical versus moral identities in identity management. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(1), 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mckenna, A. (2012). Profiling and manipulating Human behaviour: a core contemporary privacy concern, 1–19. Retrieved on 13/04/2013 from http://kar.kent.ac.uk/29654/.

  • Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. (2013). Risicoregel reflex in de jeugdzorg ? Verkennede analyse van de bestuurlijke valkuil van overreactie op risico’s en incidentedn in de jeugdzorg. Den Haag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, K. S., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Wientjes, J. A. M. (2007). Crimineel gedrag van ouders en kinderen. Pedagogiek, 27(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 119–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oerlemans, J., & Bruning, R. (2010). De Verwijsindex risicojongeren: hulpverleners als privacyjuristen? Privacy & Informatie, (3), 116–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N. (2011). Telecare technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare. Palgrave MacMillan, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Pridmore, J. (2012). Consumer Surveillance: Context, Perspectives and Concerns in the Personal Information Economy. In K. Ball, K. D. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), Handbook of Surveillance Studies. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, J. E. J. (2006). Property and Privacy: European Perspectives and the Commodification of our Identity. In L. Guibault & P. B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain, Identifying the Commons in Information Law (pp. 223–257). Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, J. E. J. (2007). Een recht op identiteit. Nederlands Juristenblad, 82(14), 849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, J. E. J. (2010). Digital Diversity : Protecting Identities Instead of Individual Data. In L. Mommers & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Het binnenste buiten: Liber amicorum ter gelegenheid van het emeritaat van prof. dr. Aernout Schmidt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, J. E. J. (2014). Privacy in geding: Expliciteren, wegen en beperken van belangen. In M. S. Groenhuijsen & A. Soeteman (Eds.), Recht in geding (pp. 51–59). Boom Juridische Uitgevers. Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijksoverheid. Wet Verwijsindex risicojongeren van kracht op 1 augustus 2010 (2010). Rijksoverheid. Retrieved on 11/08/2012 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/persberichten/2010/07/09/wet-verwijsindex-risicojongeren-van-kracht-op-1-augustus-2010.html.

  • Rubinstein, I. S., Lee, R. D., & Schwartz, P. M. (2008). Data Mining and Internet Profiling: Emerging Regulatory and Technological Approaches. The University of Chicago Law Review, 75(1), 261–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (2000). Privacy As Intellectual Property? Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1125–1173. Retrieved on 14/01/2010 from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1229511?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105205886723.

  • Schermer, B. W. (2011). The limits of privacy in automated profiling and data mining. Computer Law and Security Review, 27(1), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schinkel, W. (2011). Prepression: the actuarial archive of new technologies of security. Theoretical Criminology, 15(4), 365–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, D. W. (2009). Self-exposure and exposure of the self: informational privacy and the presentation of identity. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(1), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sholtz, P. (2000). The Economics of Personal Information Exchange. First Monday, 5(9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, J., Nissenbaum, H., Flanagan, M., & Freier, N. G. (2006). Ethics and children’s information systems. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hof, S. (2011). Het gedigitaliseerde kind - Over de onevenwichtige relatie tussen burger en overheid in de eJeugdzorg. Retrieved on 21/03/2013 from http://www.recht.nl/vakliteratuur/familierecht/artikel/308903/het-gedigitaliseerde-kind-over-de-onevenwichtige-relatie-tussen-burger-en-overheid-in-de-ejeugdzorg/.

  • Van der Hof, S. (2014). No Child’s Play: Online Data Protection for Children. In S. et al. Van der Hof (Ed.), Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety (pp. 127–141). The Hague: Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hof, S., & Keymolen, E. (2010). Shaping minors with major shifts : Electronic child records in the Netherlands. Information Polity, 15(4), 309–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hof, S., Leenes, R., & Fennell-van Esch, S. (2010). Framing citizen’s identities: The construction of citizen identities in new modes of government in The Netherlands, research on personal identification and identity management in new modes of government. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hof, S., & Prins, C. (2008). Personalisation and its Influence on Identities, Behaviour and Social Values. In Profiling the European citizen Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 111–117). Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ploeg, I. (2010). Security in the Danger Zone: Normative Issues of Next Generation Biometrics. In E. Mordini & D. Tzovaras (Eds.), Second generation biometrics: The ethical, legal and social context (pp. 287–303). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E. (2008). De Basisdataset: de inhoudelijke basis van het digitaal jgz-dossier. (RIVM, Den Haag).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wijck, F. (2009). Logisch dat de huisarts in jeugdzorg altijd in beeld is. Huisarts in Praktijk, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, N., Helberger, N., Kool, L., Van der Plas, A., & Van der Sloot, B. (2012). Online tracking: questioning the power of informed consent. Info, 14(5), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarsky, T. (2010). Responding to the Inevitable Outcomes of Profiling: Recent Lessons from Consumer Financial Markets, and Beyond. In S. Gutwirth, Y. Poullet, & P. De Hert (Eds.), Data protection in a Profiled World (pp. 53–74). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research which enabled this chapter had been funded via the DigIDeas project, which was granted to Dr. Irma van der Ploeg by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seven Framework Programme (FP7 2007–2013)/Grant No. 201853/. Furthermore, I am very grateful to Prof. Corien Prins for her support and insightful comments on this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karolina La Fors-Owczynik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

La Fors-Owczynik, K. (2017). Profiling ‘Anomalies’ and the Anomalies of Profiling: Digitalized Risk Assessments of Dutch Youth and the New European Data Protection Regime. In: Adams, S., Purtova, N., Leenes, R. (eds) Under Observation: The Interplay Between eHealth and Surveillance. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48342-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48342-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48340-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48342-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)