As you surely know by now, there is no such thing as privacy on the internet. Personal and financial information can be exposed by data breaches, and even our political preferences are subject to analysis and exploitation.
But the recent arrest of a man believed to be the Golden State Killer raises new questions about online anonymity — or lack thereof. The lesson, as if we needed another, is that you should be cautious about putting anything online that you would not want published in the newspaper; it can become a matter of public record.
On April 24, police in Sacramento, Calif., arrested 72-year-old James Joseph DeAngelo Jr., and charged him with eight counts of murder. He is a suspect in a string of crimes committed by the so-called Golden State Killer from 1974 through 1986 — at least 12 murders, more than 50 rapes, and more than 100 burglaries. The fact that the trail had gone cold for three decades is one unusual aspect of the case. Another is that authorities used an online DNA database to find the suspect.
Voluntary DNA testing has become a popular hobby, with the curious shelling out up to $100 to find out where in the world their ancestors came from or to locate long-lost relatives. Customers send a saliva sample to a testing company in exchange for information that can help in constructing a family tree. By the way, we are not endorsing these sites, the accuracy of which is disputed by some experts; we’re merely explaining how they work.
Anyway, police in California recently found a well-preserved DNA sample from the Golden State Killer and found a match on a public genealogy website. The link was to relatives of the suspect and cleared the path that led to his arrest.
While it is good news that DeAngelo is behind bars — if he is, indeed, the killer — it also raises ethical questions. Some advocates have pointed to the case as an example of the need for extensive DNA databases to be coordinated among law enforcement agencies, but caution is warranted when talking about the collection of such deeply personal information.
DNA does much more than fingerprints in providing information about a person. It can reveal all sorts of medical information, up to and including whether an individual has a chronic condition or is at risk for certain kinds of cancer. In the wrong hands, it could result in employers refusing to hire a job candidate or insurance companies declining to provide coverage.
In the case of DeAngelo, the legality of using a family DNA match is certain to lead to a court battle; genetic database searches typically are limited to suspects already in custody or those already convicted of crimes. But authorities deserve kudos for their ingenuity and for opening a possible new line of investigation techniques. It also will lead to further debate about the benefits and the drawbacks of a national database for fighting crime.
For the rest of us, however, the scenario generates fascinating questions while serving as a reminder that privacy is largely a thing of the past. While genealogy companies typically allow for a consumer to choose whether to share their information, there is no guarantee that secret really means secret.
That has been demonstrated by credit companies, banks, online retailers, and pretty much any entity that exists on the internet. But the odds are that you already knew that.
