Have any countries suspended or rolled back biometric ID programs due to privacy or human rights concerns?
Executive summary
Several governments and courts have halted, limited, or ordered deletion of biometric ID projects in response to privacy and human-rights concerns: Mexican tribunals have suspended parts of the country’s planned biometric CURP rollout amid litigation [1] and multiple national regulators have blocked or forced data deletion for Sam Altman’s World/“Worldcoin” biometric program in jurisdictions including Germany, Kenya, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Spain and Portugal [2] [3]. At the same time, many states continue to press ahead with biometric systems—often defending them on fraud‑reduction or security grounds—so the phenomenon is best described as selective suspensions and legal pushback rather than a broad global rollback [1] [4].
1. Legal pushback in Mexico: tribunals pause a major national rollout
Regional courts in Mexico have issued injunctions stopping compulsory collection for the biometric CURP in states such as Yucatán, Mexico City and Querétaro, citing privacy risks tied to centralized storage and cross‑agency access—decisions that interrupt a federal timetable aiming for a nationwide biometric CURP by early 2026 and echo earlier constitutional rulings, such as the Supreme Court striking down a 2021 telecom biometric mandate in 2022 [1] [5].
2. Private-sector biometric projects hit regulatory walls
Regulators have also targeted private biometric identity projects: Germany’s data protection authority ordered World (formerly Worldcoin) to delete collected biometric data and Spain and Portugal imposed temporary bans, while Hong Kong and Brazil took similar enforcement actions over claims the iris and facial data were “unnecessary and excessive,” and Indonesia suspended World’s operations as regulators scrutinized compliance [2] [3].
3. Not a uniform rollback — many states keep expanding biometric ID
Despite high‑profile suspensions, a large cohort of nations continues to adopt or strengthen biometric IDs: EU border authorities are implementing the Entry/Exit System with biometrics and a three‑year retention period for travelers’ data, several EU states are building digital wallets under bloc rules, and countries such as Malaysia and others continue enrollment expansions, showing that suspensions are often targeted rather than systemic retractions [6] [1] [7].
4. Motives on both sides: security, convenience, and civil‑liberties alarms
Governments and proponents frame biometrics as tools to reduce fraud, speed services, and improve security, while civil‑liberties groups, courts and privacy regulators warn about surveillance, mission creep, centralized breach risk and discrimination; Mexico’s authorities explicitly argue the biometric CURP will reduce fraud and bolster security even as courts question database access by agencies like the National Guard [1] [4].
5. Where enforcement looks like a rollback — targeted deletion and bans
The clearest instances resembling rollbacks are regulator‑ordered deletions and bans: Germany demanded deletion of World’s data and Kenya gave World seven days to delete biometric records, and Hong Kong judged the collection unlawful—measures that effectively shut specific biometric programs down in those jurisdictions rather than reversing entire national ID architectures [2] [3].
6. Legal nuance and limits of reporting
Reporting shows courts and data authorities can pause or curtail programs, but sources are fragmentary and often program‑specific: available records document Mexican tribunal injunctions and multiple national bans against a private biometric operator, while broader claims about global reversals or long‑term dismantling of national systems are not supported by the provided material [1] [5] [2] [3]. There is evidence of regulatory tightening (e.g., draft India rules) and evolving EU frameworks, but no single source here shows a wholesale, sustained rollback of state biometric ID programs worldwide [8] [6].
7. Bottom line: suspensions and deletions, not a universal retreat
The empirical pattern is clear in the sources: courts and data protection authorities have suspended or halted specific biometric projects and ordered deletions where privacy laws were found wanting (Mexico tribunals; World bans and deletion orders), yet many national programs proceed and some are being tightened rather than abandoned, meaning the global picture is one of contested expansion with targeted reversals rather than a sweeping rollback [1] [5] [2] [6].