This paper analyses various landmark criminal cases in the Netherlands that saw individual professionals being blamed for allegedly contributing to safety-critical events occurring in the past twenty years. These cases can be seen as symbolizing an increasingly risk-averse society whose expectations of human capacity for securing safety have reached unprecedented levels. In this view, punishing professionals who make dangerous mistakes serves to re-establish the illusion of being in control and to satisfy emotions. In practice, however, the prosecution of professional error appears to be somewhat out of touch with public sentiment, as responses to the cases discussed revealed little public support and a backlash among professionals. Moreover, safety science and practice claim that punishing individual error tends to undermine safety and overemphasizes the role of individual error compared to systemic failures. This begs the question of whether criminal liability should be imposed at the system level, as recently happened when local governments were sentenced following fatalities on dangerous road spots. Sentencing ‘system administrators’ may have advantages, but probably produces negative effects as well. Therefore, it would be ideal if administrators reduced the need for resorting to criminal law by proactively and generously taking responsibility for their organisation’s share in accidents.

Police officers’ perception of red tape depends only to a minor extent on the actual usefulness of rules and procedures. Red tape complaints rather refer to ‘rule strain’ and inadequate functioning ICT systems. Factors that can explain police officers’ perception of red tape are (a.o.) differing opinions on what police work should be like and their procedural skills. This article suggests that a constructivist approach to analyzing red tape might in general be more adequate than an objectivist approach.

Technology is increasingly being used to change people’s behavior. Such persuasive technologies can be understood as a cybernetic loop: data about the individual is collected and analyzed and, via feedback mechanisms, the technology exerts influence on the behavior of the individual. In practice, we see persuasive technology in various applications. This article discusses how persuasive technology can be responsibly implemented in a collective context, on the basis of two emerging practices: smart energy meters and fitness tracking. The cases reveal the tensions between corporate, commercial and individual interests. Due to datafication, a strong reduction is taking place in terms of what the smart meter defines as sustainable behavior and the fitness trackers understand to be healthy behavior. Each step in the process of technological persuasion (collecting, analyzing, providing feedback) presents its own challenges, which urges policy makers to reflect on preconditions for responsible persuasion.