Phew, I'm glad some people get it 
Remember, this is NOT a "upload your passport" even though that's the most obvious way to imagine what I said. This is "upload a zero knowledge proof of passport" (ZKPOP) which is radically different.
The concept of ZKP is very strange and unintuitive so I can see why some people are getting confused. It lets you do something that intuitively should be impossible - it lets you convince someone you know something, without telling them what it is you know.
In this case the fact that the remote client (wallet) is being persuaded of is that you know a valid e-passport that hashes to a particular value. It's anonymous because you can't reverse a hash. You can convince the wallet of this without actually revealing your passport data.
Alternatively, you can choose to reveal a subset of it, like country. I didn't mention this in the talk because I ran out of time, but you can choose to convince wallets that you have a UK passport, German passport, etc. Then the wallet can pick a bunch of random peers and try to get a good diversity of countries. Now this is hard to beat, even if a bad government forges lots of their own passports they can't easily mount a sybil attack!
And just to be super 100% clear, such a feature would always be optional. If a node chose not to present a ZKPOP then it would just get dumped into the "other" bucket, and using it would be no different to how things work today. You don't get the upgrade to anti-sybil protection but it wouldn't be any worse than now. It has to be optional because we're talking about a protocol extension. For it to become "mandatory" would require users to all choose to run wallet apps that required the new feature, but wallet apps are a competitive market and they're all open source. If you didn't want to request this data you would never have to.
Remember, this is NOT a "upload your passport" even though that's the most obvious way to imagine what I said. This is "upload a zero knowledge proof of passport" (ZKPOP) which is radically different.
The concept of ZKP is very strange and unintuitive so I can see why some people are getting confused. It lets you do something that intuitively should be impossible - it lets you convince someone you know something, without telling them what it is you know.
In this case the fact that the remote client (wallet) is being persuaded of is that you know a valid e-passport that hashes to a particular value. It's anonymous because you can't reverse a hash. You can convince the wallet of this without actually revealing your passport data.
Alternatively, you can choose to reveal a subset of it, like country. I didn't mention this in the talk because I ran out of time, but you can choose to convince wallets that you have a UK passport, German passport, etc. Then the wallet can pick a bunch of random peers and try to get a good diversity of countries. Now this is hard to beat, even if a bad government forges lots of their own passports they can't easily mount a sybil attack!
And just to be super 100% clear, such a feature would always be optional. If a node chose not to present a ZKPOP then it would just get dumped into the "other" bucket, and using it would be no different to how things work today. You don't get the upgrade to anti-sybil protection but it wouldn't be any worse than now. It has to be optional because we're talking about a protocol extension. For it to become "mandatory" would require users to all choose to run wallet apps that required the new feature, but wallet apps are a competitive market and they're all open source. If you didn't want to request this data you would never have to.