there's a rush by law enforcement to create a DNA database.
and if you did at a clinic or 23and me et al, be sure that your dna plus some metadata (if not from you, from your payment or from the lab, anything that goes around hippa is game) is already cataloged there.
couple months ago a newspaper shown how cheap private investigators paid for this data to narrow down location of people they were paid to locate.
Why do people keep giving out their information so freely?
[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167554-serial-killer-s...
[2]: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/9kpnnz/linda-ann-okee...
[3]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/19/maine-man-accus...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/golden-s...
> Then the researchers built a model that predicted that a database needs to include only 2 percent of a population for 90 percent of the people to have a third-cousin match or closer in it. In other words, a database of just a few million people could be sufficient to track down nearly everyone in the United States....Another pattern jumped out in the MyHeritage data: People of primarily northern European ancestry were more likely to have matches than people of primarily sub-Saharan ancestry. This reflects the predominantly white customer base for MyHeritage and most other direct-to-consumer DNA tests. It also means that genetic-genealogy searches by law enforcement are, for now, more likely to succeed with people of European descent.
These sorts of identifications actually require a lot of manual work by genetic genealogists tracing ancestry after a potential relative is found in a DNA database. For example, Barbara Rae-Venter lead a team of five people to identify the Golden State Killer.
BTW, there's a handy Wikipedia page for a list of suspects identified using the GEDMatch database
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators...
If it is actually used to make human trafficing more difficult, it is a good thing.
(Don't ask me whether I trust this administration to do anything good, for the right reasons, within reasonable bounds, with proper controls, or merely act with sanity and respect -- that is a whole other conversation likely unsuitable for this forum)
It's fallacious to frame handing more power to centralizing entities solely in terms of the good they may (possibly) do. There are always downsides, even in addition to direct misuse - eg 1000 lifetimes lost every year to the TSA alone.
It's always a trade off, and politics (aka willful ignorance) practically guarantees it won't be made for the right reasons.
Which is why I put the disclaimers in the last two paragraphs ("If it is actually used" and "Don't ... trust this administration...")
The restricting scope, application purpose, and effective oversight are the anchor points and crampons that enable us to not slide down the slippery slope, but get to the top.