Not a chance. They're like fingerprints: once they're taken, they go into a database, and they stay there.
Figured. The second "right?" was to indicate sarcasm.
Ah, sorry. Subtle nuances can be lost in cyberspace. Especially in my case (Asperger Syndrome; missing subtlety is common for us).
I find the whole thing very troubling. Living in the DC area, I've been fingerprinted so many times that I've lost count. Probably at least half a dozen times just for job background checks. I'm intensely resentful of this, but on the other hand, I also have to admit that I'd be uneasy knowing that anyone was working for an agency of the government -- particularly in potentially sensitive fields such as the one I work in -- without a reasonably thorough background check, so I grumble in silence. The DNA thing, however, is going entirely too far. It only applies to arrest for "major crimes" right now, but you can bet good money that it's going to trickle down.
Now for the wait until insurance companies are allowed to demand state-stored DNA records in order to assess people for likelihood of genetic disease, to charge more $ or deny coverage as appropriate...
I'm pretty sure that insurance companies are already doing various "amusing" things with DNA. Just one more reason we so desperately need to ditch the vampiric for-profit insurance industry and switch to some kind of single-payer system.