evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Anoppi — Finland's AI Tool for Anonymising Court and Authority Decisions Before Publication

Finland · Helsinki · See the Finland profile · See the Helsinki profile

Top 50% 60/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Finland's Ministry of Justice, with the University of Helsinki, Aalto University and Statistics Finland, built Anoppi — an open-source tool that automatically pseudonymises names and personal data in court and authority decisions before they are published as open data.

Anoppi — Finland's AI Tool for Anonymising Court and Authority Decisions Before Publication

Details

Promoter
Finnish Ministry of Justice, with the University of Helsinki (HELDIG), Aalto University and Statistics Finland
Period
2018–2020 (project); tool remains available as open-source software
Keywords
justice, data protection, open data, public administration

Description

Under Finland's GDPR obligations, court decisions and other official rulings that authorities publish for research and public scrutiny must first have personal data removed — traditionally a slow, manual redaction task. The Anoppi project (2018–2020), led by the Ministry of Justice with the University of Helsinki's Helsinki Centre for Digital Humanities, Aalto University's Semantic Computing Research Group, Statistics Finland and publisher Edita, built a language-technology tool to automate the task for Finnish-language documents.
Anoppi combines statistical and rule-based named-entity recognition with morphological analysis to detect and replace names and other identifiers with neutral placeholders (e.g. "Person A") while preserving a document's structure and readability, offered as both a web application and a REST API. It was demonstrated publicly at the Council of Europe's AI conference in Helsinki in February 2019 and published as open-source code so other authorities could reuse it beyond court decisions.
The project's own peer-reviewed evaluation found Anoppi "performs well with different types of documents" but flagged that its named-entity recognition and disambiguation still produce errors that "further improving... would enhance the usefulness of the software" — an honest acknowledgment that automated pseudonymisation is not yet error-free, so publishers using it should keep human review in the loop for highly sensitive documents.

Read the full analysis: https://seco.cs.aalto.fi/projects/anoppi/en/

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful