If the person is living, you should try to talk them and get their side of the story. Most people will only know/tell part of the story and failure to get the full story will lead to situations like this. Also, some people have vendetta against the person and are likely to print/say any rumor no matter how outlandish as a fact.
After the suit was filed I believe the Daily Mail surrendered by publishing a retraction. This indicates the editors, once they did their job, realized the original article was malicious.
The issue is preserving privacy versus a form convenience. The best way to preserve privacy is to have more control of your infrastructure thus your own email server. But most people, including most geeks, do not have the skills or time to properly run a personal email server. Thus for most using an email provider is the better option.
Overlooked in this issue is the fact that plain text emails are just look a snail mail postcard; anyone can read it while in transit. Having your own email server does not stop this.
It's not the scan that was the problem but its timing. What is not mentioned what time this happened (e.g. 2AM or 1PM). If it was an emergency surgery then there is a risk of this happening since by definition emergency surgery is unscheduled.
The real problem is that device manufacturers and the regulators do not care is patients die because of an IT cock-up. Now if both had some real skin in the game such as being vulnerable to murder charges when their criminal incompetence caused a patient to die that might help.
In the US public records are searchable by any member of the public. Many US jurisdictions try make at least the more common ones searchable online. Also, these records in cases must be published in the media such as in a local newspaper. It is quite likely the reporter was perusing the Manhattan weekly real estate transactions and noticed the sale.
Tell moron that he better not get married, divorced, die, or buy property in the US because these are published public records.
Good detectives know the limits of the evidence. But one key is amount of evidence present. If the murder weapon is found in your possession, your finger prints are present, your DNA is present, you were seen in the area at time of the crime, etc. you now have some explaining to do. One item is likely not enough to get a conviction.
Also, DNA testing has improved tremendously since it was first introduced to the point it is one the best methods to positively identify a person (except for identical twins) available. Many cold cases have been solved because of DNA evidence.
The point of the scientific evidence (all evidence actually) is not that each bit proves absolutely the guilt of the person but that there is enough evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. If you apply probability, if each bit is 95% certain the more bits will push the overall certainty much higher.
The prosecutor's goal is often a conviction but in some jurisdictions the jury is charged with finding the truth.
Back to the issue in the post, part of the problem is crime scene evidence is often poor quality (smudged fingerprints, partial prints, etc.) that make accurate identification very difficult. Couple this with very sloppy evidence handling procedures (OJ trial when the detective kept the samples in his coat pocket) and there is no valid evidence.