We're arguing different things. I don't disagree with you, just I don't think we're talking the same thing.
Do I think insurance companies, your cousin, some guy down the street should have access to genealogy databases?
No. There should be laws against that, strictly enforced, agreed to by all parties when a person donates their DNA. If violated, it should be a crime. If such laws aren't already in place, then they should be put in place right away.
Do I think every random cold case with DNA evidence that police have exhausted common methods solving, should have access to genealogy databases?
Generally no, but possibly with exceptions, all of which would involve proper cause, warrants, oversight, t's dotted, i's crossed, etc.
Do I think unsolved serial rape/murder cases like this should have access to genealogy databases?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely- with all the above precautions in place.
I personally don't see a fear of using genealogy databases to solve crimes being in any way more prone to abuse 'just because' than any other, in fact less so. I'd love to know of a scenario where people think anyone is going to abuse it in an purposeful way that would stand up in court.
I just don't think people understand how crimes get solved. Not one bit. The traditional way involves police interviewing dozens of suspects/witnesses and their "heresay" basically putting the finger on suspects. Then the police gather (or worse case plant/manufacture/manipulate or ignore) evidence that either exonerates or indicts the suspect(s).
There's ALL KINDS of avenues of abuse that can be introduced into that process. As we've seen with various innocence projects, the wrong person can and often does end up behind bars. It's often DNA (far less easily manipulated) that frees them.
You could end up a suspect in a case you have nothing to do with, simply because some Joe Blow that doesn't like you implicates you via word of mouth. Your 'privacy' rights (and your very freedom) can be all kinds of violated based simply on someone's faulty or malicious recollection of you at a crime scene.
I see tools like DNA as much more accurate than the traditional methods. The idea of some slippery slope of abuse (from law enforcement standpoint- everything else shouldn't be on the table AT ALL because I don't believe in its use for anything else, ie all the insurance company examples etc.) seem to be LESS likely by far, than abuse of the traditional investigative methods.
Facebook
Twitter