So basically any publicly available database is a tool to destroy people.
While I see your point - even accept your point, to a point - I will point out I reserve the right to think you're a little bit mad as a result.
We have this database here called "medical records" - clearly not an attempt to help others but for the hitlerites to know who to eugenicise and to spare.
An important part of the security of a database is access control. You don't want just anyone going around reading people's medical records, or you'd have a Gattaca-esque scenario where insurance companies and employers refuse to deal with certain people to avoid paying out. There are lots of very good reasons it's pretty difficult for anyone that isn't actively providing care to you to access those records, but it's also very important that the information exists so doctors are aware of any pre-existing conditions that might affect their treatment of you.
A database created for security reasons, on the other hand, has to be shared with as many people as possible to reach its full potential. It isn't really relevant to anyone but the doctor that John Doe's taking medication that results in decreased liver function. It's just so much noise. But the more widely aware people are that John is a potential terrorist the better, plus as a potential terrorist he could theoretically do terrorist stuff at any time. Potential terrorists need to be watched so they can't do any of that stuff on the sly, and the more complete that surveillance the better, from a security standpoint. It will be as intrusive and as comprehensive as it can be, because that's the most effective way to do it. The benefits to the individual and society as a whole are very small compared to the loss of privacy and chilling effect on political speech. And all that's to say nothing of the personal benefits for the people running the database to start abusing it.
So no, they aren't really comparable.