Worldcoin Privacy Concerns Intensify Ahead Of U.S. Launch

Despite claims of safeguarding personal identity in an age of rampant AI impersonation, World is increasingly under fire from privacy watchdogs and regulatory agencies worldwide.

Nick Almond, CEO of FactoryDAO, said the following on X:

“World is the opposite of privacy. It’s nothing more than a trap disguised as an investment.” 

Investigations & Bans

Previously known as Worldcoin, the project has faced regulatory heat in multiple countries. Government bodies in India, South Korea, Italy, Colombia, Argentina, Portugal, Kenya, and Indonesia have launched investigations into the project’s data practices.

Source: Cointelegraph

Meanwhile, Spain, Hong Kong, and Brazil have moved to ban the project outright. Now, World is setting its sights on the U.S., a move that could become its most contentious yet.

Biometric Data Meets Patchwork U.S. Privacy Laws

On April 30th, Altman announced that World would establish physical verification centers, dubbed “innovation hubs”, in Atlanta, Austin, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, and San Francisco. At these locations, users can voluntarily scan their irises to receive a unique biometric identifier, which the company claims helps prove someone’s “humanness” in digital interactions.

However, legal experts argue that the lack of a unified federal law governing biometric data in the U.S. could open the door to exploitation.

Andrew Rossow, a cyber and public affairs attorney, stated:

“There is no comprehensive federal law specifically regulating biometric data (such as iris scans) in the U.S.”

 

State-by-State Inconsistency & Surveillance Risks

Of the six rollout states, only Texas and California have legal statutes addressing biometric data. The remaining states, namely Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida, rely largely on general consumer protection laws. Even where state-level rules exist, enforcement may be lacking.

In Texas, for example, individuals cannot file lawsuits directly for violations related to biometric data. Only the state attorney general has enforcement power, which may or may not be applied aggressively depending on political will.

Privacy organizations, including Privacy International and Amnesty International, have long voiced concerns about biometric technologies like World. Without stringent legal safeguards, they argue, such systems are ripe for abuse.

A spokesperson for Privacy International said:

“Biometric technologies pose grave threats to privacy and personal security.”

Not Everyone Is Skeptical

Despite the backlash, some within the blockchain and crypto community see promise in the project.

Tomasz Stańczak, Co-Executive Director at the Ethereum Foundation, said he spent over 100 hours analyzing World and came away “pleasantly surprised” by its robust privacy architecture. Built on the Ethereum (ETH) network, World reportedly incorporates zero-knowledge proofs to ensure that biometric data isn’t stored or shared unnecessarily.

Paul Dylan-Ennis, an Ethereum researcher, acknowledged the project’s technical strength but noted that the user experience feels “a bit like an episode of Black Mirror,” referring to the dystopian tone of the tech.

An Uphill Battle

While OpenAI pushes forward with its American expansion, the rest of the world seems increasingly hesitant to allow World to operate freely.

In 2023, countries including Germany, Brazil, Kenya, and South Korea ramped up investigations into World’s data practices. In March 2024, Spain became the first country to impose a full ban, citing widespread concerns over insufficient transparency, data collection from minors, and the inability to withdraw consent.

In response, World has maintained that it operates “lawfully in all jurisdictions where it is available.”

Innovation vs. Privacy

World’s entry into the U.S. marks a pivotal moment for the intersection of biometrics, blockchain, and digital identity. As the platform continues to expand, the debate between technological innovation and civil liberties is unlikely to fade.

Whether World becomes a revolutionary tool for online identity—or a cautionary tale of surveillance capitalism, depends largely on how the U.S. and global regulators choose to respond.