It is the obvious eventual outcome in any system that is built as "If it isn't explicitly illegal, it's allowed". We will forever play loophole wackamole until we change our system such that doing bad things isn't allowed just because we haven't named a rule after you yet.
Grandpa sewed some oats before he got with your grandma? That's his business, not his relatives'.
It's hard to argue that a criminal's rights are being violated if he's found out through a DNA database, but the privacy ramifications overall of them are really unfortunate. The world is moving to a place where your biometrics are on the record, and the government can use them to hunt you down (see also, Global Entry, fingerprinting people who work with kids, Real ID, speed cameras, etc.).
I really don't like that we're being surveilled by default now. It's even creepier when there's now an administration in power that has no respect for prior norms and a long list of perceived enemies.
I don't like a lot of the things you mentioned, but I do like some of them.
I like that you have to be Live Scanned to be an EMT or work with children. You aren't forced to do those jobs and they do require a higher level of trust. The FBI opened its fingerprint database a century ago now, and it's been used for a lot of good and I'm sure some bad. But more good?
To those who see securing genetic privacy rights as a critical issue, what would you recommend they do? Just wait and Vote Harder Next Time?
I think Americans overall would very much support their PII being recognized as such, and to prevent the wholesaling of their genetic data.
Energy spent pointing fingers and throwing hands up would be better spent researching, educating the public, lobbying congress, and drafting legislation to support genetic (or general!) privacy. The corporations lobbying both sides against any kind of privacy regulation are the ones who have constructed the mirage that the entire party opposite of you will undo any attempt you make to improve things.
The other party had the house senate and presidency for 2 yrs, made little progress, kept no promises. I don't think partisan politics really relevant here
During those two years, that party passed some form of universal healthcare (ACA) and banking reform meant to stop the next financial meltdown (Dodd-Frank). Those were the two major promises they made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
This is just whataboutism and frankly unnecessary defensiveness. There were not partisan commentary made. The literal advertised platform of the dominant party is anti regulation so why did you feel the need to go all reactionary to it?
