[rypskar]

Is that good or bad? Maybe a naive thought but the first I think is that check every time is to check biometrics matches with what is in the passport without storing them, checking only once mean your picture and fingerprint is stored a central place and is used in combination to later verify that the passport is yours

[maratc]

Before this change, my average time for EU immigration check was 10-20 min. After this change, it's 2-3 hours. Is that good or bad?

I don't care much about "verify that the passport is yours". For centuries, the person presenting the passport was supposed to be the owner of it, with their photo (aka "biometrics") as a proof. Comparing your passport picture with your face is what border controls have been doing since forever.

[rypskar]

That is clearly bad. I was commenting based on the privacy point of it, not the user experience. On the privacy part it is also strange that fingerprints, something we leave copy off all over the place, is considered private and safe information, instead of something that is easy to copy and relatively easy to spoof

[maratc]

The linked article argues that our pictures and fingerprints are "our most sensitive data" and it's bad giving it to anyone, like the US Government. I tend to agree on the "sensitive" part but not sure I agree on "US Govt" part.

The fact that we leave fingerprints everywhere is hardly relevant, considering the costs of retrieving and storing them en masse are astronomical.

The licence plates on our cars are out in the open for everyone to see, and yet when a private company collects them and makes a searchable database out of it -- with locations and timestamps -- making it possible for anyone with access to build traceable paths of all of our movements since forever, it results in people getting enraged, and in my opinion justifiably so.