Balancing fraud analytics with legal requirements: Governance practices and trade-offs in public administrations

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Data & policy Pub Date : 2022-05-02 DOI:10.1017/dap.2022.6
Anthony Simonofski, Thomas Tombal, Cécile de Terwangne, Pauline Willem, Benoît Frénay, M. Janssen
{"title":"Balancing fraud analytics with legal requirements: Governance practices and trade-offs in public administrations","authors":"Anthony Simonofski, Thomas Tombal, Cécile de Terwangne, Pauline Willem, Benoît Frénay, M. Janssen","doi":"10.1017/dap.2022.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fraud analytics refers to the use of advanced analytics (data mining, big data analysis, or artificial intelligence) to detect fraud. While fraud analytics offers the promise of more efficiency in fighting fraud, it also raises legal challenges related to data protection and administrative law. These legal requirements are well documented but the concrete way in which public administrations have integrated them remains unexplored. Due to the complexity of the techniques applied, it is crucial to understand the current state of practice and the accompanying challenges to develop appropriate governance mechanisms. The use of advanced analytics in organizations without appropriate organizational change can lead to ethical challenges and privacy issues. The goal of this article is to examine how these legal requirements are addressed in public administrations and to identify the challenges that emerge in doing so. For this, we examined two case studies related to fraud analytics from the Belgian Federal administration: the detection of tax frauds and social security infringements. This article details 15 governance practices that have been used in administrations. Furthermore, it highlights the complexity of integrating legal requirements with advanced analytics by identifying six key trade-offs between fraud analytics opportunities and legal requirements.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Fraud analytics refers to the use of advanced analytics (data mining, big data analysis, or artificial intelligence) to detect fraud. While fraud analytics offers the promise of more efficiency in fighting fraud, it also raises legal challenges related to data protection and administrative law. These legal requirements are well documented but the concrete way in which public administrations have integrated them remains unexplored. Due to the complexity of the techniques applied, it is crucial to understand the current state of practice and the accompanying challenges to develop appropriate governance mechanisms. The use of advanced analytics in organizations without appropriate organizational change can lead to ethical challenges and privacy issues. The goal of this article is to examine how these legal requirements are addressed in public administrations and to identify the challenges that emerge in doing so. For this, we examined two case studies related to fraud analytics from the Belgian Federal administration: the detection of tax frauds and social security infringements. This article details 15 governance practices that have been used in administrations. Furthermore, it highlights the complexity of integrating legal requirements with advanced analytics by identifying six key trade-offs between fraud analytics opportunities and legal requirements.
平衡欺诈分析与法律要求:公共管理中的治理实践和权衡
摘要欺诈分析是指使用高级分析(数据挖掘、大数据分析或人工智能)来检测欺诈。虽然欺诈分析有望提高打击欺诈的效率,但它也带来了与数据保护和行政法相关的法律挑战。这些法律要求有很好的文件记录,但公共行政部门将其整合的具体方式尚未探索。由于所应用技术的复杂性,了解当前的实践状况以及发展适当治理机制所带来的挑战至关重要。在没有适当组织变革的情况下,在组织中使用高级分析可能会导致道德挑战和隐私问题。本文的目的是研究公共行政部门如何解决这些法律要求,并确定在这样做时出现的挑战。为此,我们研究了比利时联邦行政部门与欺诈分析相关的两个案例研究:税务欺诈和社会保障侵权的检测。本文详细介绍了在管理中使用的15种治理实践。此外,它通过确定欺诈分析机会和法律要求之间的六个关键权衡,突出了将法律要求与高级分析相结合的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信