Erroneously in my opinion. Verifying someone's identity does not require making a copy. Nor is a copy sufficient.
The one thing making a copy is supposed to achieve is prove that someone saw the original. But what's important is not what was on it, but who saw it, where and when and whether it was valid. This doesn't require knowing what exactly is on the document, and a mere copy achieves none of these.
What grinds my gears is idiots in the Dutch government who should know better and decided to write into law that a copy or transcript is sufficient proof. So now everyone is storing lots of sensitive information to prove something the information does not show.
The one thing making a copy is supposed to achieve is prove that someone saw the original. But what's important is not what was on it, but who saw it, where and when and whether it was valid. This doesn't require knowing what exactly is on the document, and a mere copy achieves none of these.
What grinds my gears is idiots in the Dutch government who should know better and decided to write into law that a copy or transcript is sufficient proof. So now everyone is storing lots of sensitive information to prove something the information does not show.