(NETHERLANDS) — Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague have suspended sharing passport and identity card photos with the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency, or UWV, after the Dutch Data Protection Authority opened a privacy probe into the practice.

The halt, confirmed on April 3, 2026, affects the three largest municipalities in the Netherlands and interrupts a fraud-detection method that sent residents’ passport photos to the UWV enforcement division.

Dutch authorities are investigating whether UWV illegally obtained passport photos from municipal records without informing residents. The photos were used to monitor benefit recipients suspected of undeclared work through surveillance and daily behavior monitoring.

UWV said it believed the arrangement complied with the rules, even as municipalities moved to stop it and labor representatives challenged the practice. The dispute has widened into a broader argument over how governments use biometric data in welfare and immigration systems.

In an official response, the agency said it believed the data-sharing was lawful in limited cases. “UWV believes the practice is permitted under applicable rules. some specially authorized investigators may request passport photos under limited circumstances, including for criminal investigations, based on the Paspoortwet (Passport Act).”

Municipal officials said they had stopped the transfers and reviewed their procedures. “Providing these passport photos is not allowed, and employees are now clearly aware of that. earlier instructions had not been properly followed and we have since tightened internal policies,” a joint municipal spokesperson said on April 3, 2026.

Etienne Haneveld, FNV Representative, said the labor union had filed a formal complaint with the national privacy watchdog. “The practice is unacceptable and painful. workers are being placed in an impossible position and some employees experience stress over the requests,” Haneveld said.

The investigation centers on whether photos submitted for travel documents were later repurposed for surveillance without residents’ knowledge or consent. That has drawn scrutiny to how data collected for one government function can move into another.

Amsterdam and Rotterdam had been providing multiple photos annually. The Hague and other cities are still calculating the exact number of people monitored through the method.

Internal warnings emerged before the suspension. Leaked communications from early 2026 showed some UWV team leaders had warned staff that “strictly speaking, obtaining a passport photo from municipalities is not legal,” while instructions were allegedly given to obtain images through indirect channels or social media.

Those exchanges added to concerns inside the agency. UWV acknowledged internal friction in its response on Friday.

The municipal halt also points to tension between national enforcement efforts and local privacy rules. City officials said they were reassessing privacy protocols while tightening internal policies to prevent further sharing.

The case has placed the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency at the center of a debate that extends beyond the Netherlands. Internationally, policymakers are arguing over whether broader biometric collection can deter fraud without crossing privacy limits.

In the United States, that debate is focused on a proposed Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rule called “Collection and Use of Biometrics,” listed as DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0205. As of early 2026, USCIS proposed removing age limits for biometric collection and expanding the definition of biometrics to include DNA, iris scans, and voice prints for anyone associated with an immigration benefit request.

DHS has defended that proposal as a modernized system with protections. Officials said the rule “incorporates updated privacy safeguards and a more targeted implementation framework” to prevent fraud and streamline identity verification.

Opposition in Congress has been direct. On January 11, 2026, Rep. Yvette D. Clarke and 49 House members sent a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem warning that the expansion risked “undermining civil rights, eroding public trust, and exposing millions to irreversible privacy harms.”

That U.S. dispute has unfolded alongside mounting public concern over how far biometric screening should reach. Public comments on the USCIS rule rose to over 6,000 as of January 2026, with people voicing fears of “continuous vetting” and “lifelong surveillance.”

The Dutch case carries a different legal setting, but the underlying concern is similar. Photos handed over for one administrative purpose ended up in an enforcement system aimed at detecting possible fraud.

For people in the affected cities, that shift has turned routine identity paperwork into a source of anxiety. Residents who provided passport photos for travel documents did not know the images could be used in benefit investigations.

Legal critics say that kind of repurposing can shape how people interact with public services. Human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas warned that using passport photos for fraud vetting can lead to prejudice based on age or skin color and create a “chilling effect” on people seeking social services.

The FNV complaint added another layer by focusing on agency workers, not only residents under observation. Haneveld said some employees faced stress because they were asked to carry out requests they believed were improper.

That pressure inside the agency surfaced as the privacy probe gathered momentum. Municipalities responded by stopping cooperation, and UWV moved to defend its reading of the law while recognizing conflict within its own ranks.

The issue also raises questions about scale. Amsterdam and Rotterdam said they transferred multiple photos each year, but the total number of cases remains under review as The Hague and other cities work through their records.

No city described the practice as continuing after Friday’s suspension. The three municipalities said the halt was immediate.

Dutch authorities have not limited the debate to legality alone. The investigation also touches on notice, consent, and whether residents should have been told their passport photos could move from identity records into welfare enforcement files.

That distinction matters in privacy law. A document photo collected for passports or identity cards serves a different purpose from surveillance aimed at monitoring daily behavior.

UWV’s position rests on what it says are narrow exceptions. The agency said specially authorized investigators could request passport photos under limited circumstances, including criminal investigations, under the Paspoortwet.

Municipalities rejected continued sharing under their current rules. Their joint statement said employees are now clearly aware that providing the photos is not allowed and that earlier instructions had not been properly followed.

The clash has turned a technical dispute over records access into a public test of trust in government data systems. It also comes at a time when biometric policy is drawing close attention far beyond Dutch borders.

In both the Netherlands and the United States, officials have presented expanded data use as a tool against fraud. Critics, lawmakers, unions, and legal advocates have answered with warnings about privacy, bias, and the risk that people will avoid services if they feel they are under constant watch.

Government agencies have kept their public information available as scrutiny grows, including UWV, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, the DHS newsroom, and USCIS press releases. For now, in the Netherlands, the immediate change is that the country’s largest cities have stopped sending passport photos to the Employee Insurance Agency while investigators examine whether the practice broke privacy rules.