# Framework for Assessing Ethical Aspects of Algorithms and Their Encompassing Socio-Technical System
## 5 Validation
### SyRI
#### 5.1.3 Comparison of General Media with the Court Case on SyRI  
It is interesting to evaluate the differences between what seem the most important arguments in the court case vs. the most important arguments in the media as it may illustrate differences between legal and public viewpoints. According to the court case, the purpose behind SyRI is good [52]. The court did establish that there was a lack of transparency, especially about which data are used and information provision when someone is considered a risk case. The court takes into consideration that the impact on someone when they are a risk case is huge and ruled that this consideration is not in balance with the transparency provided. The court confirmed that full transparency to everyone regarding the rules governing a decision of the algorithm was undesirable. However, when someone is considered a risk case, they ought to know why the algorithm decided they are. The general media emphasizes in part different aspects. Bijvoorbaatverdacht is a good source of opinions. In one of their articles, they mention six points as main issues [53]. * It was undesirable to introduce the law surrounding SyRI while ignoring advice from important stakeholders. * It is weird that citizens cannot inspect their data. * The volume of data used for the algorithm is problematic, which is a point also highlighted by [PERSON] [54]. * Data used by SyRI is not anonymized but merely pseudonymized, although it is unclear whether they consider this necessarily as a bad thing. * The results of SyRI as unclear and not verifiable. * The economic benefit of the algorithm is relatively low. In another article, they explain that they think it is weird that the focus of SyRI was put on so-called problem neighborhoods as well as the large impact it has on an individual when one is being considered a risk case [55]. The lack of accuracy is also mentioned as an issue. The largest issue is that they feel that every citizen is already a suspect before there is an indication of any wrongdoing. Computable.nl places the latter issue in another perspective by observing that social benefit checks via an algorithm like SyRI indeed makes a citizen suspicious in advance, but that speed checks on the highways and a similar algorithm of ABN Amro, a Dutch bank, do the same, without any complaints by the public [56]. According to Bits of Freedom [7], who awarded SyRI the cynical Big Brother privacy award, the algorithm would create a stigma to the neighborhoods it would be applied to. They also mention that citizens could not defend themselves. For Amnesty, the most important issues are that citizens are kept in the dark and the lack of transparency of the algorithm [57]. Interestingly, they mention that the algorithm cannot be checked, while the state mentioned during the court case that it can be. In the reactions on the earlier mentioned Tweakers article, people mainly want human interference with the algorithm, as in, the algorithm should not make decisions without a human checking these. Another topic that is often discussed in the general media, is that of the lack of education of the public as well as the users, for example, the governmental people who accepted the law. An interesting addition is done by computable.nl, who find it beneficial to have the goal communicated more clearly as well as to have information on the development roadmap. A few things stand out in comparing the attention to different topics in the court case and the general media. * Fewer topics have been discussed during the court case and consequently conclusions were drawn for less topics. This makes sense, because the ruling of the court has a narrower scope. One reason is that the court cannot make assumptions, whereas the media can. The court also often gives the benefit of the doubt whereas the general media would not do that. * The reactions on Tweakers.nl were very clear about the requirements for human involvement. Although both the media and the court mentioned this aspect, the court did not judge on it.