said Eidelman, “we give away data that exposes not only our own
physical- and mental-health characteristics but also those of our
parents, our grandparents and, as in DeAngelo’s case, our third
FRXVLQV²QRWWRPHQWLRQUHODWLYHVZKRKDYHQ¶WEHHQERUQ\HW ́
Eidelman’s article in the Post refers to this as “networked privacy,”
which is an apt term. While it seems like an issue limited only to the
world of genetics, Eidelman explains that networked privacy goes far
beyond our DNA: “It emerges any time we share information with
others, including all the photographs shared online in which we’re often
unwitting extras. It could also be infringed through social media
relationships, as we saw for the tens of millions of Facebook users who
recently had their information exposed to Cambridge Analytica because
of choices only tens of thousands made.”
Eidelman went on to observe that investigators may have violated
DeAngelo’s privacy rights by uploading his DNA to a public site
without permission.
MIT Technology Review put the privacy situation in even starker terms.
“As these databases grow, they have made it possible to trace the
relationships between nearly all Americans, including those who never
purchased a test.”
CAN DNA BE PROTECTED?
When privacy and law enforcement bump up against each other, ease of
accessing information is often what is at issue. Most people are probably
comfortable with police accessing records and maybe even tapping
phones when they have a warrant. Obtaining that permission requires
cause, engages with the judicial system, and (hopefully) limits the scope
of surveillance.
As I’ve read about genetic genealogy, it’s become clear to me that this is
still a highly labor-intensive process. Tackling the Golden State Killer
case required enormous legwork to build family trees and to investigate
potential suspects. It wasn’t as simple as typing in a few keystrokes on
a computer.
M
a
x
E
d
d
y
