 Think tech away, civil engagement lives here. Welcome to the Cyber Underground. I'm your host, Dave, the Cyber Guy. I'm here with Andrew, the security guy. What's up? Let's talk up your new show. Let's do it. Thank you, sir. All right. Security Matters comes on three hours before the show on Fridays. 10 o'clock. All right, man. What did you talk about this last week? Retail security. So we went behind the browser. You know, all the stuff that's going on behind that little website when you're on there shopping. What did you call it? Who's shopping? Who? Who's shopping? Who's shopping? Who's shopping? That's a little scary. People are tracking you, and this has been going on. I remember I was in the web business doing websites for a place called Home Store back in the 90s, and this was big. We realized that people had behavioral patterns just like in a brick-and-mortar store, right? And if we tracked them, we could present them with ads and options that suited their lifestyle or their choice patterns, right? And that became a big thing, and Microsoft just pounced on this. They came out with a whole engine for this. By about 2001, they dominated the market. And just everybody's gone with this trend, and now Amazon, Home Depot, everybody's got trending. They want to know what your behavior is, right? Based on this, we think you need that, and that kind of observation is kind of what leads us into today's subject matter, right? But congratulations on your new show, Security Matters. Everybody go out there and watch it. Thank you. Awesome. Every week, right? Friday's at 10. Man, I don't know why you sign up for every week. You know the challenge. Every week. That's a lot of work. Well, you've been doing it for a while, so you know we're not as well. That's right. I'm the second spin-off from Hibachi Talk. I feel like we're... Cyber Underground was the first spin-off. Hibachi Talk and Gordon, I feel like that's John Stewart in a daily show. Yeah. And they're like Colbert and Oliver. We are? Yeah, you're Colbert. I'm Colbert. I'm Colbert. I'm Colbert. Yeah, but we're spin-offs, right? Let's talk about something that just came to light. Now, this started when I was a kid in the Bay Area. I was an East Bay kid. I was an Oakland kid. A's and Raiders and the Golden State Warriors. Yeah, Vita Blue. Right. So, this started happening as a serial killer out there, the Golden State Killer, right? And this went on for 40 years. Is that what they called him back then? The Golden State Killer? Well, he got that name three or four murders in after they knew it. All these things that were happening were similar. The modus operandi or MO was pretty much the same and they said, this has got to be the same guy over and over again. And he actually, this is strange, I moved from the East Bay as a kid down to Southern California and the murders went that way. Did you get all dead? I mean, I don't know. I don't know why. It was just a coincidence, but thank you, my dear. And you know, there's a guy named Patton Doswald, a friend, this comedian, actor. His wife was a fanatic for this case and wrote a book on this. And she was just positive. She'd found the right leads and she'd got all the right information. And she died in 2016. Her husband, Patton Oswald, carried on the torch and actually published the book. And right after that, this happens. We just found out. Did she have him or was this the guy? I think this was the guy. So, I don't think... From her homework? From her homework was part of the evidence collecting, right? So, let's talk about what happened. They caught a guy that they think is the Golden State killer, 72 years old? Well, they matched his DNA to a bunch of sites. So here's the problem, right? They used publicly available DNA matching on commercially available DNA sites. They won't tell which one. And 23andmeancestry.com and a bunch of others said, no, no, no, it's not us. But there's only so many of these sites available, right? And what they do is they take the preponderance of evidence based on your DNA and they match you with other DNA markers and they say this could probably be your fifth cousin, this is probably your second cousin, here's probably someone who might even be a sibling. And what it looks like it happened, they took genetic material that they collected, they think was DNA evidence at a crime scene and they probably sent it off to a place like Ancestry or 23andmeancestry and said that was them and they built a phony profile. Okay. I've never done it. So you have to send away your DNA. You have to get like a social security number or something. No, don't have to do that. So you can do it as a fake person. You can do it as a fake person and they probably just built a fake profile and they found all the matches. So that's all the similar people. So they got, here's probably your third cousin, here's probably your second cousin and they started matching people and started narrowing the area where this person might be and they could interview those people and they could research those people and find those connections and then they took the timeline of all the murders, all the patterns that they observed, probably Mrs. Oswald's book and all that evidence together led them to a guy and as you were saying before we were talking, they probably took that to a judge and said we think this is the guy, we'd like to collect some DNA. That would be the proper way to do it and then they matched that DNA to the sample they got and they think they got their guy. And so the genetic sites are now involuntarily participating in solving crimes. Good parts and bad parts to that. We should discuss this. You took the side that is obvious, it's good to catch criminals. It's really amazing to me that they were sort of that diligent in their investigation. Like that's fairly creative. I mean just off the top of my head I keep thinking of how we had the gamers, talking about gamers being hackers and I think we must have in that the department that was working on this some young, savvy, perhaps gamers who grew up in a different generation. Thought about investigation differently, we use an online tool like Ancestry or something and said well we can find that information out, put it in as an avatar and an alias. Because when you're online in those games you're an alias, they don't care about killing all of the stuff in the game because it doesn't matter. Right. Send it up. That's probably what happened. They probably have, this started when in shoe leather and notebooks era for cops in the 70s. Tough. I mean I can't imagine, it's amazing that this guy, if this is the guy, whatever guy it was, did this and they, I was just reading a report that said that it's unlikely actually that he stopped in 86 that probably they want to go look at a other unsolved where there's DNA available evidence and see what else they've got because they just don't think he would quit. That's amazing. I love what they caught the guy. What's wrong with people? What's wrong with people? I don't know. I don't know what the genetic mix is here by the way we get these people. But that's the concern that you have which was interesting because I hadn't thought about it. I'm like, well, it's good if we use that type of research or whatever to catch a guy like him but your point was what if, first of all, we don't know, I mean I'm guessing that we do know that it's super unique but there could be somebody else or we could have flawed science. Remember the earth used to be flat. There's things that we. It's not flat? I don't think so. When did that happen? Well, they found a way to triangulate it off the planets and stuff. It looks like it's round. I mean, those pictures are not, that's not fake news. And so the, why you've seen pictures, fake news, so maybe, so anyway, but I've always said that I'm always concerned that our microscope is not strong enough. Microscope isn't strong enough yet. So science has, science can be flawed, it's been shown to be over time as we learn more about science. So wow, this thing we used to think we don't think that anymore. So maybe, I'm not going to definitively say, but what we know today, this guy pretty much looks like the guy, at least for those 10 that he's matched to. We're probably going to match him and you're right. If you go back to the turn of the 20th century, the Royal Society of London, which is, you know, Isaac Newton was part of it, Stephen Hawking was part of it, they actually said, what? Were you there? No, I wasn't there. I'm not that smart. I don't get to be in that crowd, but they actually came up with a statement in the early part of the 20th century that said, the human beings cannot go over 55 miles an hour because their innards would turn to mush. Nobody figured out the physics of, if you get to 55, your innards are going 55 at the same time, so you're not going to turn to mush. So that was their theory, right? They also said, they also said, the same society said everything, and it's around the same time, everything that's worth discovering has been discovered. And we haven't even, there was no cars and no planes at the time. So since then, I mean, people have said, we'll never break the sound barrier. Of course we did. Of course Chuck Yeager knocked that out of the park. We're going to Mars. And we're going to go to Mars. Don't know if we're going to live, but we'll go to Mars. We'll put people there, at least they'll be there. Maybe we should send this guy. Make him a test monkey. What? Nobody up there to kill yet? Let's go see what he's got. You know, that's not a bad idea. Would you rather be locked in prison for rest of your life or just go on up there and tell us what you got? Die of radiation saturation. I think. Okay. That might be good. That could be put on TV. I'm sensitive to this profile and idea that we talked about, right? So this idea that, so he's found because of the profile of his DNA matches this profile of the other DNA. So what you were talking about was a little scarier. Like, okay, what if, you know, if we're allowed to do that publicly, what if I just decide as a judge of some courtroom to just go to Ancestry.com and say, you know what, give me everybody with this profile, with this little certain marker or characteristic or criteria. And let's just say we're going to charge them more taxes. You could. It was on the bill of the House, the U.S. House of Congress. The House of Representatives actually entertained a bill last year that stated that an employer could request your DNA sample and based on the genetic markers that put you at a higher risk for medical care, they could charge you more for your medical insurance. Well, that's just wrong. Well. It's actually like, from a finance perspective, it might be a, it might be a, the correct thing, but just because you have the marker doesn't mean you're going to get this. Right. There's other things that activate genes. They can, they can lie dormant for years or not be activated. And in this case, I mean, you can argue both sides, right? The, the company doesn't want to spend more on somebody who is prone to being ill all the time. They're going to put more money out there. So the insurance company probably wants to save more money. On the other hand, and you brought this up, it's a great point. What if medical insurance providers, hospitals, healthcare could say, give us your genetic profile based on this. We're going to tailor your medical care to your genetic profile. That would actually, I think, save that company money. Yeah. Because it could be that you shouldn't eat apples or, well, you know, whatever it might be. So they may know some things that trigger or turn on that, that mutation or that gene. Or keep it off. That's going, or things that keep it off. Yeah. If you do this or more likely to. So, again, I just don't know if we know enough about genomic science yet to do this predictive sort of stuff with it, right? So I just don't know. I think we could do some good. The thing we could, I think diabetes comes to mind. A lot of people have the genetic marker that says, you're more prone to this disease. And if we were aware of that in children, we could say, hey, parents, limit this diet for this child and steer away from foods that could drive you into type 2 diabetes. I see. Right? Yeah, I mean, that could be. That would be great. That would be great. Because now we're having kids with diabetes at an astronomical rate. Is that right? Yeah. It has to do with a lot of the things we eat. You're prone to it and then you saturate yourself with it. Sugar. Of course. You have a sugary diet. People are prone to alcoholism. That's a genetic marker. Is that true? But if you never have alcohol, you can't become an alcoholic. If you have some self-discipline, you can't become an alcoholic. So does that have, if you have the gene and you drink it, if you have the gene and you drink too much, you have a tendency to have the addictive profile of an alcoholic. I see. The same thing with a lot of drug use. Not meth. That's altered. Not meth. There's no gene for meth. No. You take it and you're addicted from the first dose. Absolutely. And the first time you try it, you're addicted from then on. It alters your brain chemistry. Don't play with that stuff. But there's good parts and bad parts. So I would actually think, okay, another $100 a month, and now the doctor's no longer guessing. That's what I should be steering towards my medical career, right? Well, see, I mean, that might be $100 less, because I'm not going to, if I follow the prescription. That would be nice. Now imagine telling a bunch of kids, you can't have the ice cream. You can't have candy canes for Christmas. Right, right. So, but the trick's to limit it. We're not talking about, you know, maybe zero. Not abstinence, but limited. Yeah, because I mean, I'm just going to, I'm going to guess that if you, a gene is either off or on. So, you know, how do you, how do you, how do you know you can have one candy cane, but not 40? And then no one should have 40 candy canes. But, again, I don't know. There's some bad parts of this. So if people genetically profile their unborn children and they find out there is a good chance this child could be autistic. Now would they? They might terminate the pregnancy. They might terminate the pregnancy. Yeah, because that could have been the next Stephen Hawking. Their choice, but that could be a bad thing or could be a good thing based on the view point you're coming in from. Sure. You know, I could see both sides. Sure. But that's a dangerous slope. What if we had... I thought they do stuff like that. Well, one of our staff members here, who was kind enough to bring this up, what if we knew what the evil quote unquote gene was? That's the one that you have. That's the one. Then we could terminate all those pregnancies, but we don't know if that evil gene's going to manifest itself, right? Yeah, yeah, because it may not be on. So we could kill a whole bunch of people and not know? You're Dr. Jekyll until you're Mr. Hadd, or vice versa. I think that's the way it always is, right? I don't have that gene, man. I don't know. There's more things to discuss, and we can go into the conspiracy theories. Let's do that right after the break. Awesome. We're going to take a minute and come right back when it makes the bills. Until then, stay safe. Hello, everyone. I'm DeSoto Brown, the co-host of Human Humane Architecture, which is seen on Think Tech Hawaii every other Tuesday at 4 p.m. And with the show's host, Martin Desbang, we discuss architecture here in Hawaiian Islands and how it not only affects the way we live, but other aspects of our life, not only here in Hawaii, but internationally as well. So join us for Human Humane Architecture every other Tuesday at 4 p.m. on Think Tech Hawaii. Hi, everyone. I'm Andrea Gabrieli. I'm the host for Young Talent's Making Way here on Think Tech Hawaii. We talk every Tuesday at 11 a.m. about things that matter to tech, matter to science, to the people of Hawaii with some extraordinary guests, the students of our schools who are participating in science fair. So Young Talent's Making Way every Tuesday at 11 a.m. only on Think Tech Hawaii. Mahalo. Welcome back. We're discussing conspiracy theories here in the cyber underground. No, we're not. We're talking about genomics, man. I love it. Conspiracy theories. So we reviewed that. We think we caught the Golden State killer. It looks like this guy's genetic material matches the genetic material on 10 of the murder victims. That's an amazing... That's pretty substantial. That's substantial. If he did 10, he probably did the rest. That's probably going to be hard to argue in court, right? I think DNA material is now on a sound evidentiary basis. Well, for a couple of decades now, yeah, since the late 90s. So he's the guy. Yeah, we started using DNA as actual profiling tools for cases back in the mid-80s. And it really matured into the mid-90s. And by the 2000s, it was widely accepted as a positive. It'd be good to submit your own DNA to see if you've done any crimes. I don't think I've ever been that drunk. Volunteer your stuff to see if you match with any... So if they had an ancestry.com to figure out who you know, maybe they could have all the DNA from all the crimes that are unsolved up there and you just submit your stuff and then you're either in or out. So why would you want to do that? Because if you get a crime, you don't want anyone to know. You could establish freedom. Or that you are non-guilty. Eliminate yourself. You could eliminate yourself as a suspect. That's actually... It's a pretty good idea. Let's talk about the... Let's swing the pendulum. Okay, the other way. So what's the... We talked about the profiling part. Right. You could do pre-birth genetic testing of embryonic material to see if your child has the evil... So tell us about the Nazis because they didn't have DNA. No. But they are a good example of where this could go. Right. And I think if you look at Hitler's right-wing agenda, he just wanted a common enemy. And by building a profile of a common enemy, he also created the common good people. Sure. And he labeled them Aryan. And he said Aryans have this characteristic. And then he built this profile of the Aryan race and he fought a false history of the Aryan race. And that's how some of the symbolism you see in the Nazi empire came about. But he said you got to have, you know, blond hair, blue eyes, white skin, and you got to have good lineage with no... And did they have birth certificate, birth records of your family? And were they... Three, four generations back, actually. German. That was... German, Austrian. You could add Swiss to that or Ouija and Danish. So there were a few that were okay. But if you were outside of that or you had other birth... What do you call it? Birth records. Right. You know... You couldn't throw Poland into there. You couldn't throw in anything Northern Africa, you know, especially not people of color of any kind. It had to be... Because they weren't... It was a Northern European profile, basically, right? And so... And so everybody else was excluded. You couldn't hold office. You couldn't hold an official position. And then he sold that to his people, the country he got him believing. That's right. And then they started kicking people out. The common enemy profile is a long-standing tradition being used by many dictators over millennia. Wow. You know, we have a common enemy. We can go all the way back to Rome. Rome had Carthage was a bitter enemy. No matter what Carthage did, Rome kept its empire going because it was always death to Carthage. And Carthage was the same way. Death to Rome, right? Until Rome wiped out Carthage. Yeah. And... So in this... It's been, you know... Other rinse repeats like shampoo through history. So in our DNA model, what we're worried about today... You could do anything... We were to profile... What if we profiled all the DNA and said everybody who has Neanderthal ancestry still left in them is lesser. You can't be a professor. You can't work for NASA. You can't hold office. You're a lesser citizen because we don't think you'll ever achieve an IQ worthy of that. Or what if just you're going to be... You're going to be too... Your health model. What if you're going to be too expensive to support your life? Right. So you can't have government-supported health care. You have to get your own. You can't have a life. Or they just eliminate you. Right. Or there's an isolated place... That's against... I feel like if you don't have blue eyes, if you don't, you know, or whatever. Same thing. Crazy, right? Yeah. And eventually, you know, of course we all know Hitler's final solution was the burn of him. And now, how many... Do you know how many people are in these... my 23 and me's and answer... How many people are in there? I don't know what their populations are. They're big. They're in the millions. No. They cover the globe. They do. They're global. Yeah. I will tell you this about 23 and me. I participated in this. I found out there's a lot of my lineage. My wife, who is a Japanese ancestry, has mostly Okinawan. Awesome. But when she did 23 and me, she just identified as Japanese. Oh. She thought she was Okinawan. Or she does have some, but she's mostly... What we think it is 23 and me does not have yet a large enough population of... Sample size. Sample size of Asia. Gotcha. So they can't differentiate Korean, Japanese, very well. more than Korean... No, it's not as discreet. Not as discreet. It needs to be. Whereas with the European profiles, I came out Ashkenazi, Jew, Asian, what else was I? Native American, Latino... Poi dog, you. Poi dog. And Irish, of course, a lot of Irish. So that's good. So... Yeah. So how do we know then that this profile, this guy? We got the match. So that's an interesting thing. So if sample size could be an issue, then for them to have used that as publicly available evidentiary data to go get their subpoena, maybe their grounds for subpoena could be argued against. I can see that argument coming up and seeing it get shot down rather quick. Because what you're looking for when you're gathering evidence and getting a warrant is the maybes. This is possible. The judge says, yeah, I think there's a possibility here. This is enough to get a warrant. And you don't have to be spot on, but you've got to be in the general region of your topic. Yeah, I'm sure they had other things by then. So, but given, had they been looking for perhaps a Okinawan person? Right. They might have missed. And then used the database where your wife was at and they could have missed her because she shows up as Japanese in their database. That sample size is kind of like the error thing we talked about, the falseness or the other side of using that data in a negative way is that the data may not be complete yet, which is kind of back to some of them, the problem with science I was talking about. So that's interesting. We've got two concerns here, I think. We've got to make sure that the science is sound and that we keep reviewing it. Peer-reviewed journals repeat the science so we get the same results in the same experiment. So we proved that the science is true. We've got to do that. I think in this case they got it. These matches those people. But it's how did they get to going, because they have to get a warrant to go to surveil him and pick up his DNA. Yeah. So it was that evidence sound enough. And probably it wasn't all based on the ancestry. I would imagine 40-year case. They got a lot of evidence. And they found where he was and his, you know... This might have been anecdotal to the other evidence and just was enough to tip him over the fulcrum and convince the judge, okay, now 40 years plus this. Okay, now I think this is enough to go searching. Interesting. Let's go get some. The other thing I think we got to watch is intent. You know, we're putting all this data out there. We're feeding all these databases with all our most precious information. So whoever uses that information, I think there needs to be some oversight somewhere to manage intent. What do you intend to do with that data? No one managed that. And I'm sick to death of people not realizing that when you sign up for a free service on the web, it's not free. You're the product. Well, and the data scientist who advised Cambridge Analytica what could be done. I mean, this is like the same guy that advised these cops today. Maybe if you go look through ancestry, you might be able to... Some... Yeah. As we are getting a... What do you call them? Just... I'm gonna say just younger people engaged in these trades, police investigation, political lobbying, whatever it might be. They're coming up with some unique ways to use this data that just people maybe hadn't thought about yet. These young people have grown up with this ubiquitous model of computer and data. And they're in their whole life in games. And we didn't grow up with that. Yeah, we don't think that way. The biggest technology we had in my house before I moved out, I think we got a microwave. Yeah. I mean... And were you afraid of it? Well, after I read the hamster thing, that urban myth, I just wouldn't touch it. But I got over that. But that was the biggest technology we had. And when I raised my kids, they had laptops. Yeah. That is an amazing technological leap in just about 20 years. And now, in the next 20 years, it's gonna be even greater. And now we're building this genetic database. Database, yeah. And law enforcement's got one. Yep. For criminals, right? Sure. And, yeah, some day, they're gonna start cross-referencing the criminals with the other samples. The other samples. I'm wondering... Well, I mean, in AI, I'll probably be able to do it really quickly, actually. I'll imagine some deep learning that'll be available for... Probably fixing old crimes that are unsolved, imagine those up and stuff like that. But ultimately, you know, hopefully we'll get to this evidentiary level with that type of science that it'll deter crime. That's what you would hope. I would hope. Will it? I don't know, because if we listen to our distinguished producer who was whispering in our ear about people's predisposition with their DNA, it might be that you're gonna just be a crook anyway, but maybe we'll catch you sooner. Like, this guy... That's an interesting one. We can catch you sooner. Yeah, maybe, you know, so... And that would be helpful, right, obviously. You'd be in the pool of usual suspects if the crime got committed and you were in the area. Hey, you got that genetic marker. Because we know you had that bump on your DNA. We should go ask Jason what he was doing on there. You know, I can get that. We just don't want the genetic material, the genetic profile to be used against us to cost us more money to make us part of society that we don't want to be part of. Well, you've got to think, too. Think about how slowly things like legislation and law move. This was pretty fast. Pair to technology. Bill, last year, based on genetic material, people could charge us more for medical insurance. So, we're at that point. Were there at least introducing, but it didn't pass. It didn't pass, but the DNA stuff's been around since for 20 years. Right. This is going to come around again. That's how slowly the courts and all that are moving compared to the technology. Gosh, I hope you're right. I can see this happening in our lifetime. Oh, I would think so. I can see this. So, do you think... Well, let me ask you a question. It will be on the record. Do you think we'll be more for good or more for bad, or what do you think will happen? I'm a positive guy. I think it's more for good. I think there will be some bad, though. For instance, we're getting older. We're getting older. We're getting older. What if our genetic profile says, you're going to have very bad health after age 90? Well, then they'll have that member, the Soylent Green, and everybody's got to do a turn on the carousel. Assignment, everybody. Go out there and watch the movie Soylent Green. Yeah. You get your turn on the carousel. It was Edward G. Robinson and Tarleton Heston. Yeah, yeah. You got to watch that movie, or at least, you know... I mean, I was... You'll have to read the book. The idea, you know, right? I mean, it's... You're using people for food? Well, I mean, that's what that was about, but it was that you had your time, you lived your life, and then you did your turn on the carousel at age 35. So that genetic marker might say, oh, you're 90. Yeah, you got to get on the carousel at 89. This is it. Yeah, let's... What did they call in the movie Going Home? Yeah, Going Home. I want to go home. Yeah. And that would frighten me. See, so in my family, people live well into their 90s. Oh, so you're looking forward to it. It's hard to kill us off. It really is. But you already gave up your DNA. I already gave them my... Maybe I don't have that marker that says I'm going to live that long, and someone says, you know, you can live that long, but we're not going to give you medical care. Yeah, like we're not going to take care of you, because you're too expensive. That's right. That's scary. That could be bad. Okay, we're going to have to wrap things up. Hey, you want to give yourself one last plug before we go for Security Matters next Friday? Security Matters next Friday, 10 a.m. Next Friday, I'll actually be at the NSA changing command, so we may not have an episode, but I'll be back on Friday after that. Okay. Well, I'm going to be watching your show, and maybe you can go run it next week. Let me know. There you go. Okay. Okay, everybody, join us next week, and we'll have a topic. Hopefully, we'll be doing something like Cyber Law, which is coming up. And if I can get that guest, that'd be great. If not, we'll do something interesting, and we'll scare the whole living crap out of you with more cybersecurity. Until then, stay safe.