When I was in college (jeez that’s like 7 years ago) I did my dissertation on the future of privacy and I spent 7-8 pages on DNA tracking like 23andMe.
As a business and invasion of personal identity is immoral.
However the major point of ethicality is for police work, as I believe it was ancestry that helped catch the golden state killer. I believe it was ancestry relative of the serial killer did the test and there was a used cigarette at the site of a murder and tracked back to him.
It’s a whole philosophical debacle. Is it right to keep the dna of millions stored to prevent or capture a handful of potentially dangerous individuals.
Oh I agree with you, since it was my dissertation I had to argue for both sides. The view of “potential danger” is not worth the weight of violating a natural human right.
I touched upon similar a social credit scoring system, where in ideology with big brother crime rates will go down, however the trade off is people will have less faith in others. As people will no longer be able to determine altruism, are you helping me because you’re a good person, or just to boost your credit score.