The Ministry of Communication and Digital (Komdigi) in Indonesia may delete 500,000 retinal data records collected by the platform World. This follows concerns about potential data breaches.

Komdigi is investigating whether storing retinal data presents risks. If evidence of such risks is found, the data could be permanently deleted.

World, a platform offering ID verification, has faced scrutiny for offering 800,000 rupiah (US$48.34) to users who scan their retinas.

Following the suspension of its operating license by Komdigi, the platform halted all scanning activities in Indonesia. World clarified that its cryptocurrency, Worldcoin, is not used as compensation; the tokens are optional incentives.

🔗 Source: CNN Indonesia

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ Indonesia’s evolving data protection framework faces its biggest biometric test

The Worldcoin case highlights critical gaps in Indonesia’s developing data protection regime as it confronts large-scale biometric collection for the first time.

Indonesia primarily relies on the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (Law No. 11/2008) and its amendments for data protection, lacking the comprehensive frameworks seen in jurisdictions with established biometric regulations1.

Despite constitutional recognition of privacy rights, Indonesia has no dedicated data protection authority, complicating enforcement when confronting novel biometric collection practices like retina scanning2.

The MoCI’s current regulations require notification of data breaches within 14 days but lack detailed provisions specifically addressing biometric data protection, creating regulatory ambiguity for emerging technologies1.

This regulatory gap is particularly concerning given the permanent nature of biometric data. Unlike passwords, compromised retinal scans cannot be changed, creating lifelong vulnerability for affected individuals3.

2️⃣ Financial incentives raise ethical concerns about informed consent in biometric collection

World’s approach of offering Rp800,000 (~$51 USD) for retina scans raises significant questions about whether true informed consent is possible when financial incentives are involved.

Research shows this incentivization strategy isn’t unique to Indonesia. Similar approaches have been used in multiple countries where World operates, targeting regions with lower average incomes4.

This practice highlights a critical concern in biometric ethics: whether consent can be considered fully informed when financial incentives may disproportionately influence economically vulnerable populations to share permanent biometric identifiers5.

Recent World developments