Originally Posted by
martindo
This document appears to contradict itself. Page 4 boasts of "static" data being secure but the LDS2 proposal promises "update" of photo as well as intrusion of travel patterns and other data that presumably would be used to restrict/override a passenger's use of a visa.
Also, notice how page 6 says "Less reliance on physical document inspection procedures" as if a machine isn't physical. What they mean is less reliance on HUMAN inspectors.
The intent is to have both a static (read-only) element and a dynamic (read-write) element for governmental use purposes.
Governments want more automated inspection using biometrics because the CBP-type personnel may be no better at manually matching (or rejecting matches of) people's faces against passport photos than a toddler.
When manual inspection fails, it's not as systematically and time-intensively disruptive as when massive automation, applicable to huge numbers of people, massively fails.