I see the legitimacy of dwshelf's comments about DNA collection aiding in crime-solving (and perhaps acting as a deterrent for some crimes), and I suspect it's true that the collection sooner or later is going to happen.  But some of the worst legal drafting in the history of law has come from Congress -- unless, a strong possibility but terribly disquieting, they COULD do better but choose not to in order to leave convenient loopholes for cronies -- and I seriously doubt their ability to come up with meaningful, implementable, easily enforceable safeguards against misuse of data.  In the end, I find myself in agreement with P6.  I have neither the imagination nor the desire to do anything criminal, but I am filled with vague unease at the idea of the fingerprint God left on me being in someone else's keeping. (No, I'm not a creationist -- that's a metaphor!)  In a society increasingly in love with "networking" and "hooking up with", I move more and more toward reclusiveness -- my anonymity is a comfort; no target above the horizon lessens the chances of being an innocent bystander swept up in a chaotic moment.  I'd like to keep it that way.  Of course, I'm 71.  Unless they act fast to implement the DNA-registration for everyone, and assuming I don't embark on a senior citizen life of crime, chances are I won't have to be concerned personally.  But I'll worry about the rest of you as I step off the planet.

The specific point isn't my concern so much as the trajectory.

If we were a society that saw medicine as a public good and acted accordingly I wouldn't hesitate to back things like this. But I look at the way we process, the way we choose, and dropping enough genetic information about the population to draw valid statistical inferences into the hand the such ilk as runs our nation strikes me as a pretty stupid thing to do.

Except, of course, that said ilk are among those who decide... 

The use of DNA for identification alone is a threat only to the criminal.

The bad uses, such things as trying to only hire "desirable" traits, need to be themselves criminal.

There is a middle ground though.  If a small percentage of people are highly susceptible to developing cancer if they work with chemical x, while most people face no threat at all,  it might well make sense to screen for that susceptibility while hiring for a job handling chemical x.

I think there's danger in seeing this as a slippery slope.  The value of identification will eventually overwhelm any objection, and if that's been the primary line of defense, the secondary defense will not be well developed. 

"The use of DNA for identification alone is a threat only to the criminal."

That may be true on the planet Zonk where you live, but on Earth, in the land of America, where countless innocent folks have been sent to death row, only a fool would trust this corrupt government and its criminally injustice system to acquire, maintain and use this most personal of all data in an honest and legal manner.

We passed the "1984" threshold over 20 years ago. It's a Brave New World my friend. Welcome to the Animal Farm. Welcome to the Matrix.

value of identification will eventually overwhelm any objection,

So why not make the same argument for putting surveillance cameras on every street corner? Or eliminating cash and making all financial transactions personally traceable? Or requiring everyone to have a tracking chip implanted?

Surely the value of identification will overwhelm any objection.

So why not make the same argument for putting surveillance cameras on every street corner?

Already partly here, coming everywhere else..

Or eliminating cash and making all financial transactions personally traceable?

benefit/cost ratio too high. 

Or requiring everyone to have a tracking chip implanted?

benefit/cost ratio WAY too high.

Why does the old "Now we're just negotiating the price" joke come to mind?