I understand the need for identification - ID documents long predate these systems and include basic biometric data: photograph, eye and hair color, and sometim

I understand the need for identification - ID documents long predate these systems and include basic biometric data: photograph, eye and hair color, and sometimes even a finger imprint. In the digital era, ID cards can be made unforgeable and the biometric data can be encrypted and made available only to pre-authorized entities (I.e airport biometric gates) What I don't understand is why they aim to replace the ID card, a smart, cheap hardware token that can be interfaced with very simple hardware, with a monstruos system where the fingerprint itself is the authentication device. Now you need complex, finicky machines to read fingerprints and irises/faces whenever you want to do authentication and also require internet connectivity all the time; it's no longer possible to do the low tech, offline validation "ID is present, appears not forged on visual inspection and photograph matches holder". This was usually suficient in 95% of the usecases. You also lose on end to end security: if fingerprint data is duplicated, a rogue acces point can fake authentication, despite the fact that neither the govt nor the person wants that. And once the fingerprint is compromised, it stays that way forever, maybe even putting the original owner on various blacklists. So instead of going for the low hanging fruit and build a solid electronic ID system where optional biometrics can add some value and also be protected, they overextended to a snake oil system that is actually worse in every way. A cautionary tale for government security purchases and probably the very corruption it purports to address.