Political parties and voters are gearing up for the House of Representatives elections on March 17. What do the election programs say about privacy and the protection of personal data? What plans do the parties have on the issues surrounding digitization, cyber security, Big Tech, algorithms and ethics? With one week to go, Privacyweb analyzes the election programs of 17 political parties to gain insight into the plans for the Netherlands for the next four years. (1)
Research from 2019 by the Personal Data Authority (AP) shows that a large part of the Dutch population is concerned about their privacy. Especially in situations where people have lost control over their personal data. (2) In the past year, we saw that due to the actions of various government agencies, large amounts of privacy-sensitive information ended up in the streets.
According to the Pirate Party, the Dutch government has "sold out" Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the right to privacy in recent years. (3) The party says it will no longer let this happen and is therefore committed to privacy in all aspects of life.
Almost all parties agree that citizens should have more control over their personal data and that data collection by the government should not be at the expense of citizens' privacy. This is evident from the following program points: less data collection from the government equals less risk for the citizen (JA21); the government should make it easier for citizens to claim their privacy rights (PvdA); data collection from the government should be limited (FvD); the proposed "Super SyRi" law in which the government collects, links and analyzes massive amounts of data will not be introduced (PvdD).
The SGP states that the government must closely monitor the privacy of citizens. On the other hand, the SGP says in its program that citizens themselves must become much more aware of the dangers of publishing and storing personal data, and wants more attention to this in upbringing and education.
Protecting citizens' privacy from "data-guzzling" companies must be coordinated EU-wide, according to the SGP. The VVD wants the mandatory storage of vital personal data of Europeans to be stored in Europe, so that it falls under EU law. Only in exceptional cases and if the interests can be guaranteed, according to the VVD, storage can also take place outside Europe. The CDA strives to establish in a European context that citizens themselves are and remain the owners of their own personal and personal-related data. According to the party, "such an unambiguous legal provision" provides, among other things, security for citizens. In contrast, FvD wants an abolition of "anti-SME EU legislation," such as the General Data Protection Regulation (AVG), and the "useless cookie law.
A number of programs pay specific attention to the protection of medical data. The CDA, D66, the PvdD and the SGP insist on better protection of the (exchange of) medical data and protection of access to medical records, while safeguarding patient privacy.
The expansion of the AP is also included as a proposal by several parties. GroenLinks, the PvdA, the PvdD, the Christian Union and the Pirate Party want more capacity at the AP for better enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (AVG).
Several parties are also speaking out on the subject of camera surveillance. D66 and the PvdD call for a ban on the use of cameras with facial recognition in public spaces. GroenLinks says automatic collection of biometric data in public spaces, such as facial recognition, should not be allowed. The Pirate Party argues that cameras in public spaces degrade privacy and have little impact on the scale of crime. Therefore, the party is in favor of shifting police personnel from monitoring tasks to good contact with the neighborhood and "skilled detective work. The VVD, on the other hand, does want to deploy additional camera surveillance, more specifically in problem neighborhoods and in public transport.
A number of issues further stand out. The Christian Union proposes that directors of publicly traded companies be held personally liable for poor data protection. FvD wants to give people the option of not taking a static IP address. A static or fixed IP address is immutable and allows permanent identification of devices connected to the Internet. PVV would like to see the identity of every convict with photo and name made public through municipal "digital pillories.
The PvdD wants to ensure that students can refuse to install surveying software for taking online exams. The Pirate Party says it wants legislation banning the enforcement of "permission" to watch or listen in, in the personal environment of students and homeschoolers.
Digitization has rapidly changed our economy and society over the past decades. The rapidly changing digital world brings new opportunities, but also risks. Risks to freedom, security, the relationship between government and citizen, and the relationship between citizens themselves. The urgency to pay attention to issues surrounding digitization is great. This is also evident from the various party programs.
In a digital world, digital skills are indispensable. Many parties have included developing or retraining in digital skills in their program. For example, 50PLUS wants digitization classes for "non-digital-savvy" people and the elderly who are lonely to be given tablets and "digital literacy courses. The CDA also calls for a national program of digitization education for the elderly and lonely.
As far as D66 is concerned, it is time to give digital skills extra attention to improve job opportunities. Both job-seekers and employees must be able to continuously retrain themselves. The same applies to politicians, administrators and civil servants. GroenLinks wants teachers to be given more opportunities to develop themselves digitally. The PvdA proposes a national investment agenda to promote digital inclusion and combat digital illiteracy. The party also wants every Dutch household to have an enforceable right to an affordable and fast Internet connection.
The SGP believes, on the other hand, that digitalization requires realism at the same time. Not everything can be done online and remotely. Digital innovations are mostly focused on the individual, with the risk of increasing loneliness. The party believes the government should therefore also continue to invest in other solutions. Vrij en Sociaal Nederland (VSN) also argues that it must always be possible to fall back on human contact and find a solution to problems. The answer should never be that the system does not allow it.
The PvdD also wants citizens who cannot use the digital means of government to continue to have access to a physical counter in their own municipality. The VVD advocates maintaining the possibility of correspondence not only digitally but also by mail.
In addition to the topic of digital skills, the coordination of digital issues also appears in several programs. D66 wants one approach to the digital transition with one minister responsible for both digitization of the government itself and digitization in society and the economy, including security, privacy and ethical aspects. The Pirate Party and newcomer Volt are also pushing for a Ministry of Digital Affairs. VSN talks about a separate ministry for ICT and Technology. The SGP goes for a single ministry that should coordinate and play a guiding role in the theme of digitization
If it were up to the SP, there would be a "Digitalization Commission" to advise politicians on the social consequences of technological developments and make proposals for additional civil rights in the digital age. The VVD wants coordination within the cabinet for digital issues.
What is further striking is that the CDA wants an expansion of the Constitution to include fundamental digital rights. International treaties of the UN, the EU or the Council of Europe should also be adapted to the digital age, according to the CDA.
By being increasingly dependent on a digital infrastructure, society's digital vulnerability is increasing. Many parties feel the need to increase the digital security and digital resilience of the Netherlands. Below are some points from the various programs for illustration.
The CDA wants a multi-year cybersecurity program for the Netherlands led by a separate National Cybersecurity Coordinator. The Christian Union wants to invest in cyber knowledge in the Defense Department. D66 calls for research in the field of cyber security and extra money in the police and the Public Prosecution Service to tackle cybercrime. GroenLinks, the PvdA, the SGP and the VVD also seek more capacity in the police in this context.
The SGP and the VVD further want more budget for the Defense Cyber Command and the intelligence services. Also, according to the SGP, decryption orders should become possible. The PVV wants extra money to fight advanced cybercrime and digital threats by foreign powers. If it were up to the FvD, the government would soon no longer use Huawei and other Chinese equipment.
Views on the Intelligence and Security Services Act (Wiv), popularly known as the Sleep Act, also emerge in a number of programs. The CDA wants the law amended where necessary to increase the effectiveness of the service, while the Fvd and the PvdD want it repealed. GroenLinks is also vehemently opposed to the "dragnet power. According to the Pirate Party, some powers in the law are too broad, supervision is too limited and the data of innocent citizens can too easily end up in the wrong hands. In its program, the party has included a number of concrete proposals to improve the Wiv. The PvdD also calls for a new "privacy-friendly Wiv.
When it comes to sharing citizens' data with foreign security services, the PvdD envisions a very restrained AIVD. In addition, the party argues that investigative agencies cannot gain access to computers without a weighty, court-tested reason.
Volt calls for a single European digital identity to protect our digital security. The party says that with a digital European identity, working and living in other countries within Europe will become administratively easier, while malpractices with social contributions, taxes, and subsidies can be more easily traced. The proposed Ministry of Digital Affairs could initiate this in Brussels.
What further stands out is the VVD's 'hack back together' proposal. In the case of cyber attacks, the party wants the Netherlands to 'hack back' together with NATO allies. A hack that causes heavy physical damage is equivalent to a military attack, according to the VVD, and then the NATO principle of 'all for one' applies.
Big technology companies have had more or less free rein in Europe since the advent of the Internet. This has meant that companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google can collect massive amounts of user data and largely determine what users get to see on the Internet. However, because of their dominant market position, these companies are increasingly under fire.
Most parties that have included the subject of Big Tech in their election manifestos are critical. Stricter rules are needed to curb the market power of big companies. Many parties argue for a so-called "digital tax," a tax on digital services. Currently, large technology companies, not based in the Netherlands, pay no tax here.
The CDA wants income from digital activities to be taxed the same as if this income were derived from a physical activity. GroenLinks, the PvdA and the SP are also in favor of introducing a digital tax so that large technology companies will pay fair taxes on their turnover from now on. D66 calls the European digital tax a first step to also reach international tax rules with countries outside the EU.
In addition, the SP, the PvdA and D66 say they want to split up BigTech companies. VVD is in favor of splitting up if companies abuse their dominant position, and for the CDA, splitting up is only an extreme possibility, in case companies become too big.
To curb the influence of large technology companies, the PvdD wants to curb "microtargeting" - which involves very targeted advertising. If it were up to the PvdA, there would be mandatory transparency about the origin of political ads and "microtargeting.
JA21 believes that judging content on online platforms should be taken away from Big Tech companies and returned to where the party believes it belongs: the courts. A platform with commercial interests cannot be expected to judge in a balanced and objective manner, according to JA21.
The SP argues that social media should not be sanctuaries for threats and harassment. Measures are needed against large technology companies if they use algorithms that create one-sided information. The PvdD argues that large Internet companies should be forced to be more transparent about their storage and use of data and the operation of algorithms. The FvD also wants disclosure of algorithms used by social media platforms.
Digitization and new technologies also create new ethical dilemmas. Questions that arise are: how far may be gone in the use of collected data and in influencing the behavior of citizens? Is there sufficient knowledge of how technologies work and is it possible to intervene when necessary?
Several parties pay attention to the ethical side of digitization in their programs and agree that there should be more transparency about the use of algorithms. For example, GroenLinks would like algorithms for behavior prediction and decision-making to be transparent and regularly tested for compliance with human rights, including non-discrimination and the principles of good governance. In both the private and public sectors.
The PvdD also believes that self-learning systems, in which computers make decisions about people without human interference, should be subject to strict ethical and privacy scrutiny. The CDA wants ethical and legal standards to be established for the use of information technology and personal data by companies and governments. The SGP believes that values and standards should also apply to the digital world. The proposed Ministry of Digital Affairs should ensure the development and application of digital "rules of the game.
DENK says it is watching new forms of discrimination in the digital domain with great concern. Due to hate on social media and discriminatory algorithms in the government and companies, the party calls for an Anti-Discrimination Task Force. A Digital Discrimination Control Act should ban discriminatory algorithms.
Although JA21 does not want to hold Big Tech companies responsible for the content on their platform, the party does see an opportunity in holding them accountable for developing algorithms with disruptive elements for society.
VSN wants digitalization to be used to facilitate citizens without losing the human touch. Leading the party's proposed Ministry of ICT and Technology are ethics and an integrity commission.
The VVD is in favor of a regulator for algorithms. The party wants this newly created organization to oversee transparency of algorithms in both the public and private sectors.
The Pirate Party believes that where algorithms make decisions that affect people, there should be accountability for how they work. The party believes we should get rid of the idea that algorithms are too complicated to regulate. The Pirate Party also proposes a Digital Markets Authority with the task of monitoring the social impact of algorithms.
The Christian Union wants to transform the AP into a strong regulator for Digital Security. According to the party, this "watchdog" must better monitor what companies and governments do with our data and what algorithms and techniques they deploy. The Christian Union also wants a hallmark for safe smart algorithms that respect privacy and digital security.
D66 advocates expanding the AP to include an algorithm watchdog. The party says all uses of algorithms that dig through databases of innocent people's data should be legally limited. Further, D66 says technology companies that select and prioritize what people see should be held accountable. These companies should be labeled "vital social enterprise," which should establish an independent editorial board and be able to publicly and transparently explain what choices their algorithms make and how.
Almost all parties agree that citizens should have more control over their personal data and that data collection by the government should not be at the expense of citizens' privacy. In addition, there is a great urgency among politicians to pay attention to issues surrounding digitization. Extra money and attention must be given to the development of digital skills, and digital issues require a centralized approach, according to several parties. Many parties also feel the need to increase digital security and digital resilience in the Netherlands. More money must be made available for this. Furthermore, the majority of the parties argue for limiting the power of Big Tech companies and for more transparency about the use of algorithms. The ethical side of digitization also receives attention in many programs.
Footnotes:
(1) For this article, the election programs of the 15 parties with at least one seat were analyzed based on the NOS polls on March 7, 2021. The Piratenpartij and Vrij en Sociaal Nederland make explicit statements about privacy and/or digitalization and are therefore also part of this analysis. All program points have been taken from the election programs on the websites of the political parties. The analysis does not claim completeness.
(2) https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/nieuws/nederland-maakt-zich-zorgen-over-privacy.
(3) Article 12 UDHR (Paris, 1948) - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference in his personal affairs, in his family, his home or his correspondence, nor to any attack on his honor or good name. Against such interference or attack, everyone has the right to protection by law.
