Just a curiosity question for those of you with trepidation about the FBI having access to your genome - what exactly is the fear, what negative consequences. (Barring, or course, having a guilty relative you want to shield.)
Biometric Security Poses Huge Privacy Risks
New technologies will also make it possible to extract far more information from the biometrics we are already collecting. While most law-enforcement DNA databases contain only snippets of the genome, agencies can keep the physical DNA samples in perpetuity, raising the question of what future genetic-analysis tools will be able to discern. “Once you have somebody's DNA, you have all sorts of very personal info,” Lynch says. “There is a lot of fear that people are going to start testing samples to look for a link between genes and propensity for crime.”
Current law is not even remotely prepared to handle these developments. The legal status of most types of biometric data is unclear. No court has addressed whether law enforcement can collect biometric data without a person's knowledge, and case law says nothing about facial recognition.
By the time general trepidation is specific and imminent enough to be justified, it is far too late.
When I was a kid, at the Alabama State Fair, they had a booth where parents could take their kids to get fingerprinted. I think the idea that sold it was that in case of a kidnapping or somesuch, it would help law enforcement locate the kids. Even as a kid, I was apprehensive about it, because all I knew from watching TV was that fingerprints were what got people caught. Now, I did not at that time aspire to a life of crime, and I have been on a (relatively) lawful path my whole life, but that doesn't mean I wanted to get caught forensically if I ever did do something. Of course, now I am cynical enough to believe that the police probably never solved an abduction using that database at all, and just wanted as many people in their database as they could get to make it easier on them to do their jobs. As for myself, I have utter faith in myself that if I ever committed crimes, that I would be justified in doing so. What I do not have utter faith in is that my definition of what should constitute a crime would always and forever match the definition used by local, state, and federal authorities. I know that is a tough sell, especially in law-and-order Alabama, home of Jeff Sessions, who thought the KKK was OK until he found out they smoked pot, but I still trust myself more than I trust anyone else, which forms the basis for the desire to minimize the amount of leverage that lawful authorities have over me. Opposing comprehensive databases, even for noble purposes, is just one part of that.