Government Risk Profiling: Discrimination Risks Remain

Margriet Vermeer · 2026-05-07

Government risk profiling is supposed to keep us safe. But at what cost? A new report from the Universiteit van Amsterdam warns that without principled measures, the risk of discrimination and harm stays dangerously high. ### The Core Problem Risk profiling uses data to predict who might commit a crime or pose a threat. The idea sounds good on paper. In practice, it often targets already marginalized communities. Researchers found that these systems can reinforce existing biases. For example, if historical arrest data shows more arrests in certain neighborhoods, the algorithm flags those areas more. This creates a vicious cycle where more policing leads to more arrests, which leads to more profiling. ### Why Principled Measures Matter The report emphasizes that "without principled measures, the risk of discrimination and harm remains too great." What does that mean? - **Transparency**: Citizens need to know what data is collected and how it's used. - **Accountability**: There must be oversight to catch biased outcomes. - **Fairness**: Algorithms should be tested for racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias before deployment. Without these safeguards, profiling becomes a tool of oppression rather than protection. ### Real-World Impact Consider this: A family in a low-income neighborhood might be flagged for extra scrutiny just because of their zip code. A person of color might be stopped more often for "suspicious behavior" that's actually normal activity. These aren't hypotheticals. Studies show that predictive policing tools have led to over-policing in communities of color across the United States. > "Risk profiling without safeguards is like driving a car with no brakes. You might get where you're going, but you'll hurt people along the way." ### What Needs to Change The Universiteit van Amsterdam research suggests several key reforms: 1. **Independent audits** of all government risk profiling systems. 2. **Public reporting** on how these tools affect different demographic groups. 3. **Community input** in designing and implementing profiling programs. 4. **Clear limits** on what data can be used and for how long. These steps won't eliminate all risk. But they can reduce the harm that comes from unchecked profiling. ### The Bottom Line Risk profiling isn't going away. Governments will keep using data to make decisions about who to watch, who to stop, and who to investigate. The question is whether we'll do it fairly. The answer depends on whether we demand principled measures now. Because without them, discrimination isn't just a possibility. It's a certainty.