Lawyer Reijer Passchier on the law, Big Tech and Big Brother

In your book "Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Law," you conclude that digitization is a threat to the democratic rule of law. How so?

'Because our current constitution, our system of checks and balances, is not equal to digitalization and AI. For example, at the moment it is mainly the executive branch that benefits from digital technology. They can work more efficiently and gain more power, for example, thanks to Artificial Intelligence. Within the public sector, AI is already being used in many places: to detect fraud, to determine the risk of school dropout, to estimate the reliability of property values, and so on. The judiciary and parliament lag behind: they themselves hardly use AI and lack the knowledge and ability to effectively monitor the digitizing public administration. The already existing imbalance within the trias politica will only get worse as a result.'

In what way is it skewed?

'First because of the rise of the welfare state, and after 9/11 also because the government wants to guarantee security in more and more areas. This has led to more and more powers for government agencies, with a great impact on citizens. Members of Parliament, meanwhile, have to control the ministries, with their thousands of civil servants, hired consultants and huge budgets, with the help of at most two employees.'

Is that also what went wrong with the Supplement affair?

'This has several causes, but the use of algorithms by the Tax Administration to detect fraud certainly plays a role. Partly because of this, parliament was very late getting to grips with what exactly was happening, and so were the judges.'

But by now politicians have woken up, haven't they?

'More or less. For example, there is now a special Lower House Committee on Digital Affairs. Yet the actual knowledge of politicians is still disappointing. Moreover, you cannot tackle such a problem in a mono-disciplinary way. In the Lower House, the spokesperson for digitalization may not say anything about social affairs or health care, for example, but the point is that this technological component is intertwined with all policy areas. So you will have to cooperate in a multidisciplinary way.'

In addition, you worry about the growing power of Big Tech

'Yes, because we see that companies like Meta (formerly Facebook) and Google can also impose more and more rules on citizens. You can object: then go to another company, right? But in practice, many citizens need those services to function, including in their jobs. Like private mini-states, tech giants can use their power, as they see fit, to enrich themselves and their shareholders.

What else are you thinking about to restore balance?

'For example, to a special office for Technology Assessment, as they have in Germany: experts who support the members of parliament in their monitoring and co-legislative task, by estimating what impact new technology, and legislation about it, will have on society. On their own, parliamentarians can do relatively little.'