Genetic surveillance or investigative tool?

Because the "grim sleeper" was apprehended for crimes spanning over 25 years due to his son's DNA, this question comes up again. The question, is it genetic surveillance or a tool for investigators? DNA makes or breaks cases and has even released those wrongfully convicted. Defense Attorneys ask if it is present. Prosecutors slam dunk their cases with it. OJ got off because it wasn't collected properly. Personally, I think it is invaluable to investigators having a bank of DNA/ fingerprints to check to help a family of a violent crime have closure. I have even been finger printed for job in security. I am sure my prints are in a data bank like Codis. I am not going to turn to a life of crime so it doesn't matter to me that my prints may be subject to comparison. What is the issue with having finger prints and DNA stored on a computer search to solve cases? What is the fuss behind having your DNA checked against open cases? If you are not committing crime, you have no reason to worry. I can see if there was an issue with checking your DNA to see what your genetics show but to solve crimes... How is it a privacy issue?