A growing rift within the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) over the controversial World.org iris-scanning program has drawn sharp criticism from data privacy advocates — including former National Privacy Commission (NPC) chair Raymund Liboro — who warned that the technology risks “turning human eyes into economic assets” and exploiting the poor under the guise of digital inclusion.
In a statement titled “Safeguarding Dignity in the Age of Emerging Technology,” Liboro, who now heads the consulting firm Privacy and Security by Design, said that while iris scan technology itself is not inherently harmful, its current implementation by World.org’s developer, Tools for Humanity (TFH), poses grave ethical and privacy risks.
“Offering substantial cryptocurrency and other financial incentives in exchange for people, especially poor Filipinos, consenting to iris scans is not digital inclusion but a form of consent by necessity, disguised as choice,” Liboro said.
“When consent is bought, it is not freely given and ceases to be genuine.”
He warned that the collection of immutable biometric identifiers like iris scans opens the door to future misuse — from surveillance and discrimination to exclusion from essential services.
“Are we truly ready to entrust a foreign private company with our most intimate personal data — our unique iris — on the assurance that it can keep them secure and private?” Liboro asked. “This promise demands not blind trust but rigorous public oversight and accountability.”
Liboro cited global precedents: Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) recently halted the offer of financial rewards for iris scans, while Spain’s Data Protection Agency (AEPD) ordered the deletion of all biometric data gathered within its jurisdiction — a move upheld by the Spanish High Court.
He defended the NPC’s cease-and-desist order against TFH, saying it “is not anti-technology” but “a safeguard for responsible innovation.”
The controversy escalated after DICT secretary Henry Aguda publicly endorsed cooperation with World.org during an October 7 press briefing in Malacañang, calling the iris-scanning system a “unique solution” for verifying human identity in banking and government transactions.
“If you’re the banker and you’ll make sure the person talking to you is not a robot or a deepfake, you can enlist in World.org,” Aguda said. “It’s like Captcha — but instead of clicking boxes, this is a retinal scan.”
Aguda said the DICT and the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) are preparing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) related to the technology and exploring its use for authenticating government aid beneficiaries.
The NPC, an attached agency under the DICT, had earlier ordered TFH to immediately stop collecting and processing Filipinos’ biometric data, citing multiple violations of the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
It found the firm’s consent mechanisms invalid due to monetary inducements, describing the practice as “undue influence.”
NPC deputy commissioner Jose Amelito Belarmino II said that the project’s model “compromises the integrity of consent” and that collecting “immutable biometric identifiers merely to prove humanness” is “excessive and disproportionate.”
“The integrity of a Filipino citizen’s biometric data is non-negotiable,” Belarmino said. “When consent is compromised by the lure of compensation, it ceases to be a true expression of choice.”
Following Aguda’s statements, the NPC issued a clarification stressing that only formal issuances approved by the commission en banc represent its official position.
“Any assertions made outside of these issuances should not be construed as the Commission’s official position,” the NPC said, in what observers view as a veiled rebuke of Aguda’s remarks.
The rare public contradiction between the DICT secretary and the NPC underscores a deeper policy divide within the same department — between technological innovation and data protection enforcement.
Analysts warn that such dissonance undermines public trust and weakens the country’s credibility in enforcing digital rights.
“As technologies like iris scanning and AI evolve, the challenge is not whether we should innovate — but how we can do so without sacrificing human dignity,” Liboro said. “Real progress protects people first.”
