# Framework for Assessing Ethical Aspects of Algorithms and Their Encompassing Socio-Technical System
## 5 Validation
### The Algorithm of the Municipality of Amersfoort
The evaluation of the 12 cases showed that in this case, a limited inaccuracy of the algorithm has a beneficial effect: it keeps the law enforcers on their guard when investigating cases marked by the algorithm. **Explicability:**: Here also, the context could change. Awareness should be created with all stakeholders of this fact. Moreover, customers are not automatically immediately notified when they are considered a risk case. They are only notified after the desk investigation. The desirability of a protocol allowing them to request this (with a risk score and reasons why) still needs to be evaluated and if positive, such a protocol needs to be designed. It has been decided that law enforcers are not informed why the algorithm marks a customer as a high risk case. The reason is to keep them as objective and on their guard as possible. There are currently no protocols envisaged for dealing with extreme public outrage. Such protocols may be useful, since there is quite some resistance to these types of algorithm after what the SyRI court case. Another point that one did not realise but came to light when applying the framework,is that the citizens of the municipality of Amersfoort currently do not know that an algorithm is being developed. They will only be informed after the municipal council has been informed. The decision by the council whether to continue with the development of the algorithm of not, lies in the future at the time of writing. Related to this is the information to the public. Obviously this also has not been worked out yet, but the intention is to publish technical documentation with extra information. The framework recommends that this documentation should include why data analysis is performed, what the consequences are for citizens, the legal basis, and an explanation of the quality assurance. Finally, customers have a duty to provide certain information to the municipality such as when they move in with a partner or when they get a new job. No reminder is sent to customers currently. There is some legal basis to not inform customers when they are investigated, including a check by an algorithm. The municipality of Amersfoort is advised to think about the ethical basis, whether it is considered desirable to ask customers periodically to check and update their data among which the criteria the algorithm will be using. In summary, the goal behind the algorithm of the municipality of Amersfoort is also clear and good. The focus on helping rather than punishing is a commendable benefice. Many parts have already been thought of or worked out. Concerns to pay attention to are the sensitive data that may be included in the algorithm, the protocols that need to be updated or created, that citizens do not know about the algorithm yet, that the communication to the public must still be created in a good manner, that customers do not automatically get to know why they are considered a risk case and that it might be good to remind customers once in a while that the algorithm is used. For some concerns more awareness could be created such as that the algorithm needs training, the impact on customers, the risk that is present with using a brand-new algorithm, the inaccuracy that is deliberately present and the fact that the context may change. As mentioned earlier, not every part of the framework must be green, but the intention is to make sure that all aspects receive thought and attention.