Biometric Technology at the Borders of Citizenship 343 keeping with the data-minimisation principle that is increasingly listed within major data-protection frameworks and compilations of best practices (Maple, Epiphaniou, and Bottarelli 2021b, 9; Vecellio Segate 2022b, 91), and that a fortiori applies in precarious (and regulatorily demanding) contexts of cross-border migration, disaster recovery, community resilience, development cooperation, crisis response, and humanitarian aid – among others (Gazi 2020, 3; Qadir et al. 2016, 16–17). Functional (purpose-specific, assumingly tokenized) and foundational identity onboarding (Hicks, Mavroudis, and Crowcroft 2022, 3), however, may require different thresholds of “minimum core” data to be shared with authorities, first responders, and other relevant parties even in these peculiar contexts. To exemplify, consider the attribute “age”: foundational ID may require its full disclosure, therefore all options will revolve around who should then access that information; instead, functional ID might be satisfied with either partial disclosure (say, the birth year alone), or no disclosure of this particular attribute at all, or a threshold-based confirmation that one’s age matches preset categories (e.g. older than X, or younger than Y). As my last point here, I suggest that even those who do not wish their biometrics be recorded, should be provided with an identifying code as for at least one of their extended-family devices to be included within the national early-warning, emergency-alert programs – if applicable; needless to say, this turns out crucial in the context of humanitarian operations. 8.2 How can the Introducer’s Trustworthiness be Enhanced? As obvious as it may sound, the first element to ensure that introducers best attend to situations of borderline citizenship is to provide for specific guidelines and regulations that delineate their role towards these situations, in accordance with all the considerations formulated above. Regrettably, this is not presently the case. If one considers, for instance, a quite detailed law that was recently enacted in the Philippines to regulate citizens’ biometric onboarding, paucity of information is supplied about “special circumstances”, with indigenous individuals and residents in remote areas being mentioned, but no reference whatsoever to the four categories scrutinised here. Even where the document accepts that ‘[a]n applicant who does not possess any of the documents […] shall be endorsed by a qualified Introducer’,18 no 18 Section 8.C.4 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11055 Otherwise Known as the “Philippine Identification System Act”, available at https://psa.gov.ph/sites/ default/files/kmcd/Signed-Revised-IRR-RA11055-1.pdf; the same phrasing featured verbatim in the earlier version of the Rules, retrievable from https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/kmcd/IRR%20of%20the% 20RA%2011055%20or%20PhilSys%20Law.pdf.