the implication was misleading, yes. the implication being that California has database of its citizens' genetic data. when the reality is that CA has a _physical sample_ of blood.

▲

DoctorOetker a day ago | parent [-]

A collection of cars is also a collection of steering wheels, a collection of tires, a collection of seats, a collection of engines a collection of seats, ...

as blood contains white blood cells, and these cells tend to contain DNA, yes a collection of identified blood samples is also a collection of DNA (molecules).

A DNA collection doesn't need to have been sequenced to qualify as a DNA collection.

	▲	PetitPrince a day ago \| parent [-]
		On the other hand blood samples degrade over time depending on how you store it. This makes DNA sequencing more difficult and/or impossible. Presumably the ROI (in a non-dystopian society) of storing those sample long-term doesn't make sense, especially if the primary usecase is screening for diseases (a random PDF from the Association of Public Health Laboratories says biomonitoring/biothreat samples are stored 1 year https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Spe... ). So yes a collection of blood sample is technically also a collection of DNA sequences, but it has an expiry date (a short one compared to the lifespan of an individual!) contrary to a DNA sequence that's pure data.