That may be true, but there are degrees of anonymity. The problem described in the article is not the DNA, but the association of the DNA with some other identifier. If all they have is a DNA sample, the only current way to look it up would be to match it against another DNA sample, which only tells you that you submitted a DNA sample.
In the future, it may be possible to take a sequenced DNA and simulate what the person looks like, but we've barely crossed the threshold of having enough computing power to sequence a genome, so we're many years from that being possible and, even then, without knowing the donors age, you wouldn't be able to say what the donor looks like today.
You can still get a lot out of DNA today. There have already been murderers apprehended because their family members agreed to undergo DNA testing even though they didn't.
IIRC it's possible in many cases to go from anonymous genome (and no other info) to a surname with a distressingly high degree of accuracy. It doesn't really involve trying to predict phenotypes or anything, it's basically just because you are distantly related with at least some people who have their names attached to DNA sequences.
It becomes even easier to identify someone if you have some very limited extra information. Like, say, the postcode their sample was mailed from.
My understanding is that basically the idea of an "anonymous" DNA sequence is going to quickly become meaningless, that unless the person being sampled takes extraordinary effort it will be possible to narrow down who they are. It only takes like 30-40 bits of information to uniquely identify a human.
In the future, it may be possible to take a sequenced DNA and simulate what the person looks like, but we've barely crossed the threshold of having enough computing power to sequence a genome, so we're many years from that being possible and, even then, without knowing the donors age, you wouldn't be able to say what the donor looks like today.