1) if new rules state that you can get paid for taking care of someone, then asking for that money is not fraud. You are due that money, by law. This was pointe

1) if new rules state that you can get paid for taking care of someone, then asking for that money is not fraud. You are due that money, by law. This was pointed out when the law was being discussed at the time in parliament. 2) if your supplier has it's admin not in shape (or is comitting fraud), then you are not a fraudster. 3) yes, the law mandated them to track fraud. It also mandates not labelling innocent people as fraudsters. 4) the awesome power of the state comes with great responsibilities. After 3 years of newspaper articles and commissions and debate, it is clear that that bar was not met. The crux of this issue is the fact that, yes, the state uses heuristics to operate efficiently. And courts have ruled that the state is allowed to do this. The border patrol frisks certain people more often. The tax authorities control self-employed people more often. That's not cool if you are one of those groups, and we would all do well to empathise with them. But as a society we have not found a better solution. The alternative is frisking everyone or having some sort of panopticon, which is not great neither. The real problem arises when the heuristic becomes a hard rule. And when the heuristic does not lead to an indicator "to be investigated in a neutral way", but to "likely fraudster, interpret anything you find as fraud" or even "known fraudster". Just because there is a statistical correlation doesn't mean that it's always true. This is where the tax authorities went wrong. And this is why they are now compensating people.