#accounting outsourcing companies in UK | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 4 months

Text

AI projects like OpenAI’s ChatGPT get part of their savvy from some of the lowest-paid workers in the tech industry—contractors often in poor countries paid small sums to correct chatbots and label images. On Wednesday, 97 African workers who do AI training work or online content moderation for companies like Meta and OpenAI published an open letter to President Biden, demanding that US tech companies stop “systemically abusing and exploiting African workers.”

Most of the letter’s signatories are from Kenya, a hub for tech outsourcing, whose president, William Ruto, is visiting the US this week. The workers allege that the practices of companies like Meta, OpenAI, and data provider Scale AI “amount to modern day slavery.” The companies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A typical workday for African tech contractors, the letter says, involves “watching murder and beheadings, child abuse and rape, pornography and bestiality, often for more than 8 hours a day.” Pay is often less than $2 per hour, it says, and workers frequently end up with post-traumatic stress disorder, a well-documented issue among content moderators around the world.

The letter’s signatories say their work includes reviewing content on platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, as well as labeling images and training chatbot responses for companies like OpenAI that are developing generative-AI technology. The workers are affiliated with the African Content Moderators Union, the first content moderators union on the continent, and a group founded by laid-off workers who previously trained AI technology for companies such as Scale AI, which sells datasets and data-labeling services to clients including OpenAI, Meta, and the US military. The letter was published on the site of the UK-based activist group Foxglove, which promotes tech-worker unions and equitable tech.

In March, the letter and news reports say, Scale AI abruptly banned people based in Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan from working on Remotasks, Scale AI’s platform for contract work. The letter says that these workers were cut off without notice and are “owed significant sums of unpaid wages.”

“When Remotasks shut down, it took our livelihoods out of our hands, the food out of our kitchens,” says Joan Kinyua, a member of the group of former Remotasks workers, in a statement to WIRED. “But Scale AI, the big company that ran the platform, gets away with it, because it’s based in San Francisco.”

Though the Biden administration has frequently described its approach to labor policy as “worker-centered.” The African workers’ letter argues that this has not extended to them, saying “we are treated as disposable.”

“You have the power to stop our exploitation by US companies, clean up this work and give us dignity and fair working conditions,” the letter says. “You can make sure there are good jobs for Kenyans too, not just Americans."

Tech contractors in Kenya have filed lawsuits in recent years alleging that tech-outsourcing companies and their US clients such as Meta have treated workers illegally. Wednesday’s letter demands that Biden make sure that US tech companies engage with overseas tech workers, comply with local laws, and stop union-busting practices. It also suggests that tech companies “be held accountable in the US courts for their unlawful operations aboard, in particular for their human rights and labor violations.”

The letter comes just over a year after 150 workers formed the African Content Moderators Union. Meta promptly laid off all of its nearly 300 Kenya-based content moderators, workers say, effectively busting the fledgling union. The company is currently facing three lawsuits from more than 180 Kenyan workers, demanding more humane working conditions, freedom to organize, and payment of unpaid wages.

“Everyone wants to see more jobs in Kenya,” Kauna Malgwi, a member of the African Content Moderators Union steering committee, says. “But not at any cost. All we are asking for is dignified, fairly paid work that is safe and secure.”

35 notes · View notes

tieflingkisser · 4 months

Text

Mask Off Maersk: Demand logistics giant Maersk cut ties with genocide

A new international campaign aims to end Maersk’s pervasive role in the transportation and supply of weapons used by Israel in its genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Today, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) announced the new transnational arms embargo campaign, ‘Mask Off Maersk’, targeting Maersk, the world’s largest integrated logistics and shipping company. Organisers aim to end Maersk’s pervasive role in the transportation and supply of weapons and weapons components used by Israel in its genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Since October, the Danish shipping and logistics giant has transported over $300 million in weapons components from around the world, including Europe, to U.S. arms manufacturers. This accounts for a full quarter of known U.S. shipments to Northrup Gruman, Woodward, RTX/Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin since the beginning of the current genocide in Gaza. With 68% of weapon sales to Israel coming from the U.S., Maersk is integral to the global flow of arms that sustains the Israeli occupation forces’ current bombardment of and ground operations in Gaza. ‘Although 68% of weapon sales to Israel come from the U.S., we know that the UK Government is complicit, with over £448 million worth of arms licenced to Israel since 2015. In addition, we know that critical components of the F-35 fighter jet that is currently being used to massacre Palestinians in Gaza are manufactured here in Britain,’ said PYM’s Nadya Tannous. She added that, ‘Maersk ships weapons and weapons components, meaning Maersk actively facilitates the flow of weapons to Israel. Maersk subsequently guarantees the consistent supply necessary for the destruction of Gaza’. In the campaign announcement at the People’s Conference for Palestine in Detroit, Michigan, PYM highlighted the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s injunction for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which raises the issue of Maersk’s liability in flouting the order of a court that has binding jurisdiction over Denmark, the country where Maersk is headquartered. The legal consensus reached by the court, as well as the injunction itself, is binding upon all ICJ members, including Copenhagen: By continuing to circumvent the ICJ’s ruling through its shipment of weapons to Israel, Maersk is guilty under international law of aiding and abetting an occupying powerthat has been found to be actively engaged in the indiscriminate targeting of a besieged civilian population. ‘Arms manufacturers outsource the production of weapons components, like the wings for fighter jets, ammunition, and engines. These components are then placed on a shipping container and brought to weapons manufacturing facilities, where they are assembled then shipped to Israel to conduct the genocide of Palestinians. Logistics companies play an invisible but insidious and central role in making and profiting off the weapons that Israel uses to kill Palestinians. The mask is off. The people must demonstrate what the true cost is of supporting genocide’, said Tannous.

[keep reading]

#boycott divestment sanctions #free palestine #palestine #news

5 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 11 months

Text

This day in history

This is the final weekend to back the Kickstarter campaign for the audiobook of my next novel, The Lost Cause. These kickstarters are how I pay my bills, which lets me publish my free essays nearly every day. If you enjoy my work, please consider backing!

#20yrsago Life Hacks: Tech Secrets of Overprolific Alpha Geeks https://www.oblomovka.com/wp/2003/10/22/

#15yrsago New US RFID passports manufactured offshore at a huge profit, transported by unsecured couriers https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/26/outsourced-passports-netting-govt-profit-56284974/

#15yrsago HOWTO read the secret forensic dots in your laser-printer output https://www.instructables.com/Yellow-Dots-of-Mystery-Is-Your-Printer-Spying-on-/

#10yrsago Fox News’s astroturfers who defend the network online with armies of fake identities https://www.mediamatters.org/fake-news/fox-news-reportedly-used-fake-commenter-accounts-rebut-critical-blog-posts

#10yrsago DEA instructions for testing bills for cocaine https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2013/oct/21/there-bump-your-bill-heres-how-dea-tested-money-co/

#10yrsago Huawei: unlike western companies, we’ve never been told to weaken our security https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/21/huawei-denies-spy-customers-chinese

#10yrsago UK rightsholders use secret censorship orders to block legit sites https://web.archive.org/web/20130816160817/http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/383614/rights-holders-taking-down-legitimate-sites-in-piracy-crackdown

#5yrsago Youtube CEO: EU Copyright Directive means that only large corporations will be able to upload videos https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/a-final-update-on-our-priorities-for/

#5yrsago Britain’s “nasty party” condemns its MPs’ nastiness https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45938754

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

#pluralistic

9 notes · View notes

affinityoutsourcinguk · 7 months

Text

Corporate Tax Outsourcing Services

Every UK business – regardless of its type, size, and domain – must file corporate tax returns within 12 months after the accounting period it covers. For any UK accountant, preparing and filing corporate tax returns can be a very stressful task! Take the help of Affinity Outsourcing, an experienced corporate tax preparation outsourcing company. We will calculate your clients’ tax liabilities and assist with calculating any quarterly instalment payments. You can rely entirely on us for our accurate corporate tax advice.

#Corporate Tax Outsourcing #accounting #bookkeeping #UK accountant #corporate tax advice #tax

2 notes · View notes

triboconoutsourcing · 11 months

Text

Looking for accounting outsourcing companies in UK? You are in the right place. Tribocon Outsourcing is a leading and independent accounting & tax outsourcing company. When you choose Tribocon, you get more responsive, more personal and professional work in the domain of bookkeeping, accounting & tax outsourcing across the world. For more information, you can contact us at +44-7389 642771 or Email – [email protected].

#accounting outsourcing companies in UK

0 notes

mindspaceoutsourcingservices · 2 years

Photo

Mindspace Outsourcing Ltd. provides online accounting services, outsourced bookkeeping, online bookkeeping and other outsourced financial services to the UK businesses. Mindspace is one of the best outsourcing companies having a UK presence with ISO 9001 & 27001 certified offshore centers in Jaipur, India. https://www.mindspaceoutsourcing.co.uk/accounting-outsourcing-services.html

#accounting outsourcing uk #finance and accounting outsourcing companies #accounting and bookkeeping outsourcing

0 notes

masllp · 9 months

Text

Accounting outsourcing in UK

Running a business in the UK comes with its fair share of challenges, and managing finances is often at the top of the list. Between VAT compliance, payroll processing, and bookkeeping, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the mountain of paperwork. That's where Accounting outsourcing in UK comes in, offering a strategic solution to free up your time and resources.

But with so many outsourcing providers in the UK, choosing the right one can be a daunting task. This is where Masllp stands out.

Why Masllp for Accounting outsourcing in UK?

Masllp is a leading Accounting outsourcing in UK firm specializing in serving businesses of all sizes across the UK. They offer a comprehensive range of services, including:

Bookkeeping: From recording daily transactions to reconciling accounts, Masllp takes care of all your bookkeeping needs, ensuring accuracy and compliance. Payroll processing: Manage salaries, deductions, and taxes efficiently with Masllp's expert payroll services. VAT Compliance: Stay on top of complex VAT regulations with Masllp's VAT specialists, minimizing risks and maximizing claims. Management reporting: Gain valuable insights into your financial performance with Masllp's customized reports and analysis. Cloud-based solutions: Access your financial data anytime, anywhere with Masllp's secure cloud-based platform. Beyond the Numbers: The Masllp Advantage

What truly sets Masllp apart is their commitment to personalized service and building strong relationships with their clients. They understand that every business is unique, and they tailor their services to meet your specific needs and goals. Here are some key benefits of choosing Masllp:

Dedicated account manager: You'll have a single point of contact who knows your business and is always available to answer your questions. Experienced and qualified team: Masllp's team consists of highly qualified accountants and financial professionals who stay up-to-date with the latest regulations and best practices. Cost-effective solutions: Outsourcing with Masllp can save you money compared to hiring an in-house accountant, allowing you to invest in other areas of your business. Scalability: As your business grows, Masllp can easily scale their services to meet your changing needs. Security and data protection: Masllp takes data security seriously and implements robust measures to protect your confidential information. Investing in Peace of Mind

Outsourcing your accounting with Masllp allows you to focus on what you do best – running your business. With their expertise and dedication, you can gain peace of mind knowing your finances are in good hands. So, ditch the paperwork and let Masllp handle the numbers while you take your business to the next level.

Ready to take the next step?

Contact Masllp today for a free consultation and discover how their Accounting outsourcing in UK services can benefit your UK business.

Remember, Masllp – Your one-stop solution for streamlined accounting in the UK.

Note: I have included a call to action at the end of the blog, encouraging readers to contact Masllp for a free consultation. You can replace this with any other call to action that you would like.

I hope this blog post is helpful! Please let me know if you have any other questions.

#audit #accounting & bookkeeping services in india #ajsh #income tax #auditor #businessregistration #chartered accountant #foreign companies registration in india #taxation #Accounting outsourcing in UK

3 notes · View notes

sapphireinfosolutions · 4 days

Text

Understanding the Costs of Outsourcing Your Accounting Needs

Outsourcing accounting tasks is an increasingly popular option for many firms. However, concerns about costs often prevent some businesses from fully exploring its benefits. Let’s break down the costs involved in hiring an outsourced accounting company, so you can make an informed decision.

Cost Savings Through Reduced Overheads

One of the primary reasons accounting firms turn to outsourced accounting firms is the reduction in operational costs. Hiring in-house accountants comes with expenses like salaries, benefits, training, and office space. By partnering with an accounting outsourcing company, firms can avoid these overheads and pay only for the services they need. This can lead to significant savings, especially for smaller firms or those looking to scale efficiently.

Flexible Pricing Models

Another cost advantage of outsourcing accounting tasks is the flexible pricing models offered by many accounting outsourcing companies. Firms can choose between fixed monthly rates, hourly rates, or project-based fees, depending on their needs. This flexibility allows businesses to manage their budgets more effectively and avoid unnecessary expenditures. With an accounting outsourcing UK provider like Sapphire Info Solutions, you can opt for a plan that fits your unique business requirements.

Costs Vary Based on Services Needed

The cost of outsourcing depends largely on the range of services required. Whether it’s bookkeeping, payroll processing, tax filing, or financial analysis, the more services a firm outsources, the higher the cost. However, these costs are often offset by increased accuracy, compliance, and the ability to focus on core business activities. An outsourced accounting firm can tailor its offerings to suit your firm's specific needs, ensuring that you only pay for the services you use.

Hidden Costs to Be Aware Of

While outsourcing can be cost-effective, it’s important to consider any hidden fees that might arise. Some outsourced accounting firms may charge for additional services, software usage, or setup costs. Before entering into a contract, ensure that all costs are transparently outlined to avoid surprises down the road. A trustworthy accounting outsourcing company will provide clear pricing and transparent billing, ensuring you can budget effectively.

Return on Investment (ROI)

Though outsourcing involves an upfront investment, the long-term ROI often justifies the cost. By partnering with an accounting outsourcing UK provider, businesses gain access to a team of experts who specialize in handling complex accounting tasks. This expertise not only enhances efficiency but also reduces the risk of errors, ultimately saving firms from costly mistakes or penalties. Additionally, with the time saved, firms can focus on growing their business and client base.

Conclusion

Understanding the costs associated with outsourcing your accounting needs is crucial for making the right decision for your firm. By working with outsourced accounting firms like Sapphire Info Solutions, you can benefit from reduced overheads, flexible pricing, and expert services—all while ensuring transparency and value for money. Evaluate your firm’s needs, ask the right questions, and consider the long-term ROI to make the most of your outsourcing partnership.

Sapphire Info Solutions — Contact Details

Address: 4 Whiteleys Parade, Uxbridge Road, Hillingdon, Uxbridge UB10 0PD

Contact: 020–3002–6314

Email: [email protected]

0 notes

namfintech · 1 year

Text

Expert Business Management Consultancy Advisory Services UK | NamFintech

NamFintech is a trusted provider of business and management consultancy services in the UK. We provide comprehensive consultancy and advisory services to navigate challenges, optimize operations, and drive sustainable growth in the dynamic UK business landscape.

#Accounting Services for Small Business #Audit Services UK #business consultancy uk #ERP Services UK #audit and assurance services uk #tax compliance uk #tax advisory services uk #business advisory services uk #accounting outsourcing services uk #business and management consultancy uk #accounting outsourcing company #outsourcing bookkeeping services #accounting services provider #accountant services uk #financial advisory firm uk #accounting consultant services #Top Accounting Firms UK #financial services consulting firms uk #Accounting Software ERP Package UK

0 notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

This story is part of a joint investigation between Lighthouse Reports and WIRED. To read other stories from the series, click here.

Mitch Daniels is a numbers guy, a cost-cutter. In the early 2000s, he tried and failed to rein in congressional spending under then-US president George W. Bush. So when he took office as Indiana governor in 2005, Daniels was ready to argue once again for fiscal discipline. He wanted to straighten out Indiana’s state government, which he deemed rife with dysfunction. And he started with its welfare system. “That department had been rocked by a series of criminal indictments, with cheats and caseworkers colluding to steal money meant for poor people,” he later said.

Daniels’ solution took the form of a $1.3 billion, 10-year contract with IBM. He had lofty ambitions for the project, which started in 2006, claiming it would improve the benefits service for Indiana residents while cracking down on fraud, ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars.

But the contract was a disaster. It was canceled after three years, and IBM and Indiana spent a decade locked in a legal battle about who was to blame. Daniels described IBM’s sweeping redesign and automation of the system—responsible for deciding who was eligible for everything from food stamps to medical cover—as deficient. He was adamant, though, that outsourcing a technical project to a company with expertise was the right call. “It was over-designed,” he said. “Great on paper but too complicated to work in practice.” IBM declined a request for comment.

In July 2012, Judge David Dryer of the Marion County Superior Court ruled that Indiana had failed to prove IBM had breached its contract. But he also delivered a damning verdict on the system itself, describing it as an untested experiment that replaced caseworkers with computers and phone calls. “Neither party deserves to win this case,” he said. “This story represents a ‘perfect storm’ of misguided government policy and overzealous corporate ambition.”

That might have been an early death knell for the burgeoning business of welfare state automation. Instead, the industry exploded. Today, such fraud systems form a significant part of the nebulous “govtech” industry, which revolves around companies selling governments new technologies with the promise that new IT will make public administration easier-to-use and more efficient. In 2021, that market was estimated to be worth €116 billion ($120 billion) in Europe and $440 billion globally. And it’s not only companies that expect to profit from this wave of tech. Governments also believe modernizing IT systems can deliver big savings. Back in 2014, the consultancy firm McKinsey estimated that if government digitization reached its “full potential,” it could free up $1 trillion every year.

Contractors around the world are selling governments on the promise that fraud-hunting algorithms can help them recoup public funds. But researchers who track the spread of these systems argue that these companies are often overpaid and under-supervised. The key issue, researchers say, is accountability. When complex machine learning models or simpler algorithms are developed by the private sector, the computer code that gets to define who is and isn’t accused of fraud is often classed as intellectual property. As a result, the way such systems make decisions is opaque and shielded from interrogation. And even when these algorithmic black holes are embroiled in high-stakes legal battles over alleged bias, the people demanding answers struggle to get them.

In the UK, a community group called the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People is trying to determine whether a pattern of disabled people being investigated for fraud is linked to government automation projects. In France, the digital rights group La Quadrature du Net has been trying for four months to find out whether a fraud system is discriminating against people born in other countries. And in Serbia, lawyers want to understand why the introduction of a new system has resulted in hundreds of Roma families losing their benefits. “The models are always secret,” says Victoria Adelmant, director of New York University’s digital welfare state project. “If you don’t have transparency, it’s very difficult to even challenge and assess these systems.”

The rollout of automated bureaucracy has happened quickly and quietly, but it has left a trail of scandals in its wake. In Michigan, a computer system used between 2013 and 2015 falsely accused 34,000 people of welfare fraud. A similar thing happened in Australia between 2015 and 2019, but on a larger scale: The government accused 400,000 people of welfare fraud or error after its social security department started using a so-called robodebt algorithm to automatically issue fines.

Another scandal emerged in the Netherlands in 2019 when tens of thousands of families—many of them from the country’s Ghanaian community—were falsely accused of defrauding the child benefits system. These systems didn’t just contribute to agencies accusing innocent people of welfare fraud; benefits recipients were ordered to repay the money they had supposedly stolen. As a result, many of the accused were left with spiraling debt, destroyed credit ratings, and even bankruptcy.

Not all government fraud systems linked to scandals were developed with consultancies or technology companies. But civil servants are increasingly turning to the private sector to plug knowledge and personnel gaps. Companies involved in fraud detection systems range from giant consultancies—Accenture, Cap Gemini, PWC—to small tech firms like Totta Data Lab in the Netherlands and Saga in Serbia.

Experts in automation and AI are expensive to hire and less likely to be wooed by public sector salaries. When the UK surveyed its civil servants last year, confidence in the government’s ability to use technology was low, with around half of respondents blaming an inability to hire top talent. More than a third said they had few or no skills in artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automation. But it’s not just industry experience that makes the private sector so alluring to government officials. For welfare departments squeezed by budget cuts, “efficiency” has become a familiar buzzword. “Quite often, a public sector entity will say it is more efficient for us to go and bring in a group of consultants,” says Dan Sheils, head of European public service at Accenture.

The public sector lacks the expertise to create these systems and also to oversee them, says Matthias Spielkamp, cofounder of German nonprofit Algorithm Watch, which has been tracking automated decision-making in social welfare programs across Europe since 2017. In an ideal world, civil servants would be able to develop these systems themselves and have an in-depth understanding of how they work, he says. “That would be a huge difference to working with private companies, because they will sell you black-box systems—black boxes to everyone, including the public sector.”

In February 2020, a crisis broke out in the Dutch region of Walcheren as officials realized they were in the dark about how their own fraud detection system worked. At the time, a Dutch court had halted the use of another algorithm used to detect welfare fraud, known as SyRI, after finding it violated people’s right to privacy. Officials in Walcheren were not using SyRI, but in emails obtained by Lighthouse Reports and WIRED through freedom-of-information requests, government employees had raised concerns that their algorithm bore striking similarities to the one just condemned by the court.

Walcheren’s system was developed by Totta Data Lab. After signing a contract in March 2017, the Dutch startup developed an algorithm to sort through pseudonymous information, according to details obtained through a freedom-of-information request. The system analyzed details of local people claiming welfare benefits and then sent human investigators a list of those it classified as most likely to be fraudsters.

The redacted emails show local officials agonizing over whether their algorithm would be dragged into the SyRI scandal. “I don’t think it is possible to explain why our algorithm should be allowed while everyone is reading about SyRI,” one official wrote the week after the court ruling. Another wrote back with similar concerns. “We also do not get insight from Totta Data Lab into what exactly the algorithm does, and we do not have the expertise to check this.” Neither Totta nor officials in Walcheren replied to requests for comment.

When the Netherlands’ Organization for Applied Scientific Research, an independent research institute, later carried out an audit of a Totta algorithm used in South Holland, the auditors struggled to understand it. “The results of the algorithm do not appear to be reproducible,” their 2021 report reads, referring to attempts to re-create the algorithm’s risk scores. “The risks indicated by the AI algorithm are largely randomly determined,” the researchers found.

With little transparency, it often takes years—and thousands of victims—to expose technical shortcomings. But a case in Serbia provides a notable exception. In March 2022, a new law came into force which gave the government the green light to use data processing to assess individuals’ financial status and automate parts of its social protection programs. The new socijalna karta, or social card system, would help the government detect fraud while making sure welfare payments were reaching society’s most marginalized, claimed Zoran Đorđević, Serbia’s minister of social affairs in 2020.

But within months of the system’s introduction, lawyers in the capital Belgrade had started documenting how it was discriminating against the country’s Roma community, an already disenfranchised ethnic minority group.

Mr. Ahmetović, a welfare recipient who declined to share his first name out of concern that his statement could affect his ability to claim benefits in the future, says he hadn’t heard of the social card system until November 2022, when his wife and four children were turned away from a soup kitchen on the outskirts of the Serbian capital. It wasn’t unusual for the Roma family to be there, as their welfare payments entitled them to a daily meal provided by the government. But on that day, a social worker told them their welfare status had changed and that they would no longer be getting a daily meal.

The family was in shock, and Ahmetović rushed to the nearest welfare office to find out what had happened. He says he was told the new social card system had flagged him after detecting income amounting to 110,000 Serbian dinars ($1,000) in his bank account, which meant he was no longer eligible for a large chunk of the welfare he had been receiving. Ahmetović was confused. He didn’t know anything about this payment. He didn’t even have his own bank account—his wife received the family’s welfare payments into hers.

With no warning, their welfare payments were slashed by 30 percent, from around 70,000 dinars ($630) per month to 40,000 dinars ($360). The family had been claiming a range of benefits since 2012, including financial social assistance, as their son’s epilepsy and unilateral paralysis means neither parent is able to work. The drop in support meant the Ahmetovićs had to cut back on groceries and couldn’t afford to pay all their bills. Their debt ballooned to over 1 million dinars ($9,000).

The algorithm’s impact on Serbia’s Roma community has been dramatic. Ahmetović says his sister has also had her welfare payments cut since the system was introduced, as have several of his neighbors. “Almost all people living in Roma settlements in some municipalities lost their benefits,” says Danilo Ćurčić, program coordinator of A11, a Serbian nonprofit that provides legal aid. A11 is trying to help the Ahmetovićs and more than 100 other Roma families reclaim their benefits.

But first, Ćurčić needs to know how the system works. So far, the government has denied his requests to share the source code on intellectual property grounds, claiming it would violate the contract they signed with the company who actually built the system, he says. According to Ćurčić and a government contract, a Serbian company called Saga, which specializes in automation, was involved in building the social card system. Neither Saga nor Serbia’s Ministry of Social Affairs responded to WIRED’s requests for comment.

As the govtech sector has grown, so has the number of companies selling systems to detect fraud. And not all of them are local startups like Saga. Accenture—Ireland’s biggest public company, which employs more than half a million people worldwide—has worked on fraud systems across Europe. In 2017, Accenture helped the Dutch city of Rotterdam develop a system that calculates risk scores for every welfare recipient. A company document describing the original project, obtained by Lighthouse Reports and WIRED, references an Accenture-built machine learning system that combed through data on thousands of people to judge how likely each of them was to commit welfare fraud. “The city could then sort welfare recipients in order of risk of illegitimacy, so that highest risk individuals can be investigated first,” the document says.

Officials in Rotterdam have said Accenture’s system was used until 2018, when a team at Rotterdam’s Research and Business Intelligence Department took over the algorithm’s development. When Lighthouse Reports and WIRED analyzed a 2021 version of Rotterdam’s fraud algorithm, it became clear that the system discriminates on the basis of race and gender. And around 70 percent of the variables in the 2021 system—information categories such as gender, spoken language, and mental health history that the algorithm used to calculate how likely a person was to commit welfare fraud—appeared to be the same as those in Accenture’s version.

When asked about the similarities, Accenture spokesperson Chinedu Udezue said the company’s “start-up model” was transferred to the city in 2018 when the contract ended. Rotterdam stopped using the algorithm in 2021, after auditors found that the data it used risked creating biased results.

Consultancies generally implement predictive analytics models and then leave after six or eight months, says Sheils, Accenture’s European head of public service. He says his team helps governments avoid what he describes as the industry’s curse: “false positives,” Sheils’ term for life-ruining occurrences of an algorithm incorrectly flagging an innocent person for investigation. “That may seem like a very clinical way of looking at it, but technically speaking, that's all they are.” Sheils claims that Accenture mitigates this by encouraging clients to use AI or machine learning to improve, rather than replace, decision-making humans. “That means ensuring that citizens don’t experience significantly adverse consequences purely on the basis of an AI decision.”

However, social workers who are asked to investigate people flagged by these systems before making a final decision aren’t necessarily exercising independent judgment, says Eva Blum-Dumontet, a tech policy consultant who researched algorithms in the UK welfare system for campaign group Privacy International. “This human is still going to be influenced by the decision of the AI,” she says. “Having a human in the loop doesn’t mean that the human has the time, the training, or the capacity to question the decision.”

Despite the scandals and repeated allegations of bias, the industry building these systems shows no sign of slowing. And neither does government appetite for buying or building such systems. Last summer, Italy’s Ministry of Economy and Finance adopted a decree authorizing the launch of an algorithm that searches for discrepancies in tax filings, earnings, property records, and bank accounts to identify people at risk of not paying their taxes.

But as more governments adopt these systems, the number of people erroneously flagged for fraud is growing. And once someone is caught up in the tangle of data, it can take years to break free. In the Netherlands’ child benefits scandal, people lost their cars and homes, and couples described how the stress drove them to divorce. “The financial misery is huge,” says Orlando Kadir, a lawyer representing more than 1,000 affected families. After a public inquiry, the Dutch government agreed in 2020 to pay the families around €30,000 ($32,000) in compensation. But debt balloons over time. And that amount is not enough, says Kadir, who claims some families are now €250,000 in debt.

In Belgrade, Ahmetović is still fighting to get his family’s full benefits reinstated. “I don’t understand what happened or why,” he says. “It’s hard to compete against the computer and prove this was a mistake.” But he says he’s also wondering whether he’ll ever be compensated for the financial damage the social card system has caused him. He’s yet another person caught up in an opaque system whose inner workings are guarded by the companies and governments who make and operate them. Ćurčić, though, is clear on what needs to change. “We don’t care who made the algorithm,” he says. “The algorithm just has to be made public.”

Additional reporting by Gabriel Geiger and Justin-Casimir Braun.

161 notes · View notes