>I doubt that specificity would be economically profitable.
It's be much easiser to setup a DNA catfish from a Tinder date if someone is that determined to get a decent sample from you. If it's not targeted, a door-to-door salesman can collect dozens over a day for use.
There's so many social engineering tricks to take advanadge of that you'd paralyze yourself trying to keep your DNA to yourself. Better to just petition for regulation at that point.
>The police did catch the Golden State Killer by scavenging a used coffee cup or somesuch, however.
And it required detectives to follow him around until he left whatever it was that was adequately isolated. It's a little different from a database of 7 million.
Sequencing costs dropped dramatically in a window that started when sequencing was done highly inefficiently. That gave folks the false impression that DNA sequencing would continue to halve in price every ~X years.
The NIH occasionally updates this chart (note: Y axis is log scale)
You can see there was a dramatic reduction in costs from 2008 to 2015, as several vendors released several substantial technology improvements, and a slow improvement from 2015 to now, but it's roughly flatlined, and there isn't much investment in developing new technologies now.
To the surprise of many, having enormous amounts of genomic data hasn't been the clear-cut improvement to human health, although there are some exceptions (especially cancer identification and personalized treatment). If we truly wanted to, we could spend capital and build out the sequencing, compute, and storage infrastructure to sequence every person on the planet at least once at 50X coverage, and store the data in perpetuity.
I doubt that specificity would be economically profitable.
The police did catch the Golden State Killer by scavenging a used coffee cup or somesuch, however.