I think these are separate issues. There is definitely an important difference between being able to use DNA in criminal investigations and maintaining a database of every genome in the population. The first solves a problem of legitimate social concern, the second is the stuff of dystopian fiction.
None of this is at odds with insisting upon higher levels of precision and integrity in forensic science. We can talk about reducing the number of false positives and educating juries about the limitations of forensics without resigning ourselves to the unwelcome collection of our DNA.
Yet DNA is so easy to collect; you don't need permission. I think we'll have to get used to the idea of universal identification. Its inevitable. Better to come to terms with it.
I disagree that it's better to come to terms with it. If we were to normalize a sense of disgust at the practice we could institute legal protections against bulk collection. What you're describing is simply a world that few people want.
Like I said before, "I have little hope that we will be able to maintain this form of privacy." My dispute is that it isn't worth trying to save, or that it's a thing of little value.
None of this is at odds with insisting upon higher levels of precision and integrity in forensic science. We can talk about reducing the number of false positives and educating juries about the limitations of forensics without resigning ourselves to the unwelcome collection of our DNA.