[UGAalum94]

This is only sort of related and kind of dumb at that, but why isn't submitting DNA regarded as a form of required self-incrimination in the cases where it does match? Is it because it's not testimony? (have we talked about this before?)

It also seems, as Vandal Squirrel gets at, that CSI, Forsensic Files and shows them kind of train criminals how to scientifically manipulate crime scenes. DNA as a crime related tool may not remain as useful. On the other hand, CSI and TV shows misrepresent the nature of most crimes, so who knows?

Assuming that these samples are saved in a database, which the OP doesn't really address:

Maybe the database could be required to be narrow in the information that it stores. Surely, there'd be levels of detail that could be useful for identifying people but not enough to create a true medical profile, right?

Maybe there's also a way to legally limit what the database can be used for in particular cases. I'm not sure that because you've been arrested for a particularly crime that your DNA should matched against all open crimes or stored forever. I might be okay with that post conviction, though.