Q: does the ends (identifying a criminal) justify the means (violating data privacy rights)? For people who agreed to having their DNA searchable, perhaps not. For relatives who can be identified as a close match, yes this is a violation of their privacy. How serious would a crime have to be to justify a violation of privacy on this scale? I don't think this privacy right should be routinely abused, if ever. If law enforcement agencies already abuse the power of DNA databases by retaining DNA for innocent people, then they should not be entrusted with any further powers.
Re. to allow the agency to create new profiles on his system using DNA collected from, say, corpses, crime scenes, and suspects.
Q: Do the FBI own this DNA (personally identifiable information)? I think not.
Corpses - do human rights end when you die? If law enforcement are entitled to retain DNA from any corpse, they could eventually obtain everyone's family DNA history. Unidentified corpses that are obviously a victim of a crime, perhaps.
Crime scene - an innocent person's DNA could be left at a crime scene (if they were there before / after the crime). Can law enforcement retain this DNA indefinitely, or should it only be retained while that crime is under investigation?
Suspects - are innocent until proven guilty, so again there must be strict rules for how long their DNA can be retained. Once eliminated from an investigation, their DNA should be deleted.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
