# Framework for Assessing Ethical Aspects of Algorithms and Their Encompassing Socio-Technical System
## 5 Validation
### SyRI  
#### 5.1.1 Analysis of the Court Case and Media  
We present the analysis guided by the main aspects of Figure 2.  
**Benefence**: It is clear why SyRI was developed in the first place: the benefits are to stop fraud from happening and to (re)gain trust from society in the system. The amount of money lost is substantial. Achieving this goal with the use of an algorithm seems like a good way to go (see also justice), because of its effectiveness and efficiency. Some mentioned lapses in benefice could be found, namely that the SyRI law was established with SyRI already in mind.
**Non-maleficence**: Due to the SyRI law, practically all personal data that can be thought of are allowed to be used. The contribution of the various data attributes to the decision making process has not been made clear, hence their necessity for the purpose as justification for the privacy infringement is unclear. Important to realize is that not directly suspected citizens are also analyzedby the algorithm, since it works on neighborhood level. It has been clearly established that the impact on someone being falsely accused is huge. The SyRI algorithm had been subjected to a DPIA which was reviewed by independent parties.
**Autonomy**: People marked by the system could not oppose this; they were not even informed of the fact.
**Justice**: SyRI was much criticized on the aspect of transparency (also an issue of explicability). A large concern is that there is practically no information available on the development process of the algorithm. It is unclear how it had been developed including things like whether the interests of all stakeholders were taken into account or not. Another major concern was that there was no proof available that it would actually work. Two cases were made public, of which one had only false positives. There are, however, similar projects that have been proven to work.
**Explicability**: First, it is unclear whether or not a stakeholder analysis had been performed or not. Additionally, other important information on this aspect is unknown. As explained before, full transparency is not desirable with fraud detection. The mistake made by SyRI is that this non-transparency was carried too far; the aspect of educating the public was ignored. There was only limited public information available and it was unclear where to go for more information. People marked by the system were not informed of this. People were sent an informative letter, but it did not make clear when and how often would be used within a two year period of time. Looking at it from the perspective of the proposed framework, it is quite ironic that half of the questions that could not be answered were under explicability (see Section 5.1.2).  
In short, the goal behind SyRI is clear and good. There is something to say for not having full transparency in this case. There are quite some parts of SyRI, however, that were not worked out well. These were mainly the amount of data used, the accuracy of the algorithm, the impact on someone when they are a false positive, the transparency of the development phase and the education of the public.