To add a note to Barry's answer, below, I specifically choose not to use WikiTree's "Confirmed with DNA" status. I have some academic background in genetics, and took my first at-home DNA test in 2002 as part of a university yDNA study. Eighteen new tests or upgrades since, and am currently awaiting my 30X whole genome sequencing results I ordered at the end of last year.
My objection is not privacy-related, but is based upon some of the WikiTree policy elements that I believe make the "Confirmed with DNA" designation scientifically unsupported and untenable, unverifiable, and genealogically misleading.
However, I think the larger cautionary note here--which I don't believe has ever been openly discussed on G2G before, so thanks for bringing it up--might be privacy-related.
From a privacy perspective, the most open setting possible for living persons is "Private with Public Biography and Family Tree"; the profiles cannot be set to "Public" or "Open." The vast majority of people who have taken direct-to-consumer DNA tests are still living. If they have chosen to disclose their autosomal test information (e.g., a GEDmatch ID number) so that it is visible, then they have made that conscious decision so that others might compare results with them.
But if an unrelated John Smith decides to compare the living Alice Jones's and Mary Brown's DNA in order to mark their parents and grandparents "Confirmed with DNA," per the guidelines that were amended earlier this year John, in order to write a conformant citation statement, must reference at least Alice's and Mary's WikiTree ID numbers, the name of the DNA testing or reporting company, and their general DNA matching information--and do so on multiple profiles--without the knowledge of Alice or Mary. Too, only Alice and Mary (or those on their trusted list) could edit their own profiles, so the confirmation statement and status could not be added there by John which, though I don't know if it is counter to any of the current policies, would previously been unacceptable because the citation detail of the "confirmation" chain needed to run from test-taker(s), up to the MRCA, and down to the other test-taker(s) if they were on WikiTree.
I honestly don't know whether this could be construed as any type of privacy violation or even a move lacking ethical foundation. But as of the GDPR implementation, WikiTree went to great pains to make certain that no one can enter DNA test information for any other living person. For example, if my father was in custodial care and had zero interest in genealogy, but had taken a DNA test at my request, I could not add that basic information, including a GEDmatch kit number, to his profile. In fact, his profile--since he had not created it himself--must be flagged as "Unlisted" and wouldn't be publicly viewable.
The recently amended "confirmation" instructions state, "for privacy, do not include any details about segment match locations"; which, by the way, often renders the matching information unverifiable by others, and including those details reveals absolutely nothing that is personally identifiable in any meaningful way. Further, if one of the matches involved in the "confirmation" does not have a WikiTree ID, the instructions are scrupulous: use an "anonymous identifier" and "do not publicly reveal the identity of your match" (mind you, the instructions continue to say that you must include the "genealogically-known relationship between you and your match"...which some might argue could be construed as very much individually identifying depending upon the families involved).
So if WikiTree is going to great lengths to deal gingerly with DNA information based upon privacy concerns, would a third party pursuing and documenting "Confirmed with DNA" designations for living people be acceptable?
I believe this may be an important topic, but perhaps the real question might be phrased: "Should WikiTree policy allow members, who are otherwise unrelated to the people involved, create 'Confirmed with DNA' relationship statuses for living WikiTreers?"
