Surveillance capitalism has multiplied the number of eyes on us at all times. Ubiquity of security cameras, traffic cameras, and cell phones with cameras have made it possible for law enforcement to track a suspect’s movements for entire city blocks. And that’s not counting the omnipresent eye of social media, where photo and geo tags can assist law enforcement and private investigators with locating suspects, witnesses, and collect information about a location without having to leave the comfort of their offices in what is now called a “geosocial investigation.”
Before the age of geo-data on social media, employees who called off work on Friday to enjoy a three-day weekend in Atlantic City had no fears of being discovered on Monday by a nosy employer who checked their social media. When social media was in its formative years, a private investigator would be lucky to be scraping the social media of a subject who was indiscriminate about what they chose to post on their Myspace page. Nowadays, employees have to be more cautious regarding posts about their out-of-work activities than ever, with many employees maintaining two Facebook pages—a work Facebook populated by posts that would not offend the most fastidious human resource employee, and a personal Facebook where employees reveal themselves, warts and all, with no regard for who might see the pages. Now, the new reality of surveillance capitalism has changed the world of third-party investigations forever with the assistance of geosocial investigations.
Geosocial investigations are a subset of social media investigations, where the focus of the research centers around a place, rather than a single individual. After all, if you fraudulently submit an FMLA claim that prevents you from working, you’d be very careful not to post any pictures of yourself enjoying vigorous activities, like yard work or hiking. However, if you’re in a group of individuals—all with smartphones and social media profiles of their own—it’s nearly impossible to prevent all pictures of yourself from seeing the light of the internet. This newfound culture of hypervigilance and surveillance may sound like it’s harder for law enforcement and private investigators to squeeze blood from the stone of social media, but where individuals might be protective of their own information online, their friends and relatives may not.
Deriving information on a subject from the social media profiles of their friends and family is a major tenant of geosocial investigations. Exposure online is not limited to pictures. Social media widgets that allow users to check in at specific locations, or add geotags to the photos they post, are also exposing malingering employees during internal investigations. Law enforcement can use this technology to search for social media posts geotagged at the time of an auto-accident in order to locate witnesses. By the same token, they can use it to identify people who are posting in restricted areas where civilians are not allowed. The effect of this technology allows a private investigator to “crowdsource” the information, saving themselves hours of tracking down witnesses and interviewing them.
Geo-social investigations are just one consequence of the world’s newfound surveillance capitalism. As the technology continues to mature and become more sophisticated, social media will continue to expose criminals and malingerers. Employers will see a rise in the exposure of employees abusing FMLA claims. Former employees violating non-compete agreements will be exposed before they have a chance to get a new business venture off the ground. Law enforcement and private investigators will be able to crowdsource investigations with the use of geo-social data.
Carie McMichael is the Media and Communications Specialist for Lauth Investigations International. For more information please visit our website.
California law enforcement are celebrating a break in a thirty year old cold case this week, as an an arrest has been made in the case of the Golden State Killer. However, the methods investigators used to identify the suspect have civilians debating whether or not the suspect’s civil liberties were violated.
Investigators used DNA obtained from ancestry and genealogy platforms to locate a suspect matching the profile of the perpetrator. Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, was arrested Tuesday morning, officially charged with 8 counts of Homicide committed in a decade span, across 3 California counties. They hope to eventually link DeAngelo to 12 murders and 45 rapes committed between 1976 and 1986.
DeAngelo worked as a police officer for 6 years during the original investigation—a relevant detail, as investigators suspected the perpetrator had law enforcement knowledge.
At the end of 1986, when the string of assaults and murders attributed to the Golden State Killer officially ended, the science behind DNA forensics in crime scene investigation was in its infancy. The first case in which DNA evidence secured a conviction in the UK in 1986 not only led investigators to the true perpetrator, but also cleared an innocent suspect whom had been previously implicated. In the last thirty years, the technology has become so ubiquitous DNA kits are available over-the-counter in drugstores all over the country. The technology has matured so immensely, the genetic profile of a single football can be identified to prevent counterfeiting during the Super Bowl. And now, the newest trend in DNA technology may have helped Sacramento authorities identify the infamous Golden State Killer.
Websites like Ancestry.com and 23andme.com have made it easier than ever for people around the world to find out more about their ancestry and genetic makeup. A buccal swab mailed off to a genetics lab can return results of information on everything from the palette of colors in your ancestors’ lineage to the medical problems running in your immediate genetic line. Sacramento authorities have released information advising the DNA provided to these services for informative purposes was one of the chief investigative tools in identifying DeAngelo as a suspect.
According to lead investigator, Paul Holes, GEDmatch was the database utilized leading them to DeAngelo. GEDmatch is a research tool using a database of voluntarily supplied DNA samples for researchers and genealogists. “We were able to generate a DNA profile we uploaded into [a] … database of other similar types of profiles,” Holes told KGO. “And then from there, we get a match list of how much DNA these various other individuals share with the crime scene DNA. The more DNA they share, the more closely related they are.” After obtaining information from the GEDmatch database, they placed him under surveillance. They collected several samples of his discarded DNA, which they were able to match to a DNA profile compiled from samples collected at the plethora of crime scenes, subsequently leading to DeAngelo’s arrest.
Familial DNA searches are becoming more common in forensic science, and as such, more and more controversial. As was the case in identifying DeAngelo, investigators often submit a finite number of genetic markers into a database of genetic samples and the database will return a list of possible results. Results are then cross-referenced with other databases and records to thin the suspect pool. These practices are controversial because large percentages of the country’s population share the same genetic markers, yielding ambiguous results for investigators. Many civilians feel as if the method leaves their civil liberties vulnerable, as though their genetic profiles might make them guilty by association. Currently, the only legislation preventing an individual from being discriminated against, based on their genetic information, is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
At a press conference on Wednesday, April 25th, local law enforcement did not release specifics about how the DNA obtained from GEDmatch was used to locate DeAngelo. Instead, they focused on how a more comprehensive DNA databank in California could have led investigators to DeAngelo sooner. The existing legislations, Proposition 69, was passed in 2004 and allows law enforcement to collect DNA and fingerprints at the earliest stages of criminal proceedings—beginning when the suspect is arrested, as opposed to post-conviction collection. Despite controversy, the law was upheld earlier this month.
According to Thomas Lauth, Lauth Investigations International Inc., whose firm specializes in unsolved homicides and missing persons, “Our firm must always pivot to innovative ideas and think of ways to gather DNA from a potential suspect.” Lauth further said, “Search warrants are required for human samples. However, if you can retrieve a sample from a discarded cigarette or beer can, it may prove positive. Sometimes though, obtaining positive-testing samples can be tricky. The labs could require numerous samples to finally get a positive and readable match.”
On April 28th, in his first court appearance, Joseph James DeAngelo was formally arraigned on two of the eight counts of murder with which he is formally charged. He did not enter a plea and bail was denied. His next court appearance is scheduled for May 14th, 2018.
Websites like 
At a press conference on Wednesday, April 25