Slashdot Mirror


Lifelock Worries After Employee Data Leaked To Web

itwbennett writes "Last week, Phoenix New Times reporter Ray Stein revealed that LifeLock CEO Todd Davis (who famously published his Social Security number in LifeLock ads) had been the victim of identity theft at least 13 times. This week, LifeLock made it clear that it's not so cavalier with its employees' personal data. The company asked the New Times to remove from its website a police report containing a redacted Social Security number, date of birth, address, and phone number of Lifelock employee Tamika Jones. In an interview, Stein said that the fact that LifeLock had to call and ask for the document to be removed reflected badly on Lifelock's service. 'I think this shows clearly that they know that it's got potential problems.'"

5 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Really now? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it might be helpful but its no substitute for common sense.

    Common sense would be banks requiring more information than an SSN and DOB from an internet connected computer before opening lines of credit. I watched someone apply for a line of credit with Citi online and receive a $15,000 account with no verification of his identity beyond the SSN/DOB match. What's wrong with that picture?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Re:how is this a sign of potential problems? by thedohman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are absolutely correct! They are doing exactly as I would expect the service to do. She got her info on a police report. The police department gave a media outlet the report in such a way that her personal information was exposed. LifeLock called the media outlet and asked to remove her data. There is no way anybody could have prevented the info from getting there in the first place... except maybe not giving the police department your SSN when reporting a crime happening to someone else.

    If I was a customer of theirs, and a police department did the same to me, then LifeLock is doing exactly as I would expect them to do, if they wanted to continue getting my monthly fee.

    However, Tamika is one of their own, and the police report was published in an article about them. I don't think they would even notice if it had happened to a regular customer and/or if it had not been an article concerning LifeLock.

  3. Re:Really now? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yup - I've been anonymous on the Internet, since, well, since it was Darpanet, or uucp, or whatever it was. Call me paranoid, but even way back in the day, I always wondered, "why would I want anyone to know X, about me?"

    If you are writing me a check, I'll give you enough info so I can cash it, otherwise, meh. Even my cable bill has a misspelling in my name I have not corrected in 14 years.

    P.S. NotQuiteReal, is not my real name... Proud alias-using "lurker" on the Internet/Usenet since 1982 (or before...)

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  4. Re:If you really want protection by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's $30 for a protection for life,

    Protection from what? Banks that blame a 3rd party every time they get robbed? This is no different than if a robber walks into a bank with a deposit slip from your account, writes "give me $10,000" on it, and robs the bank at gun point. Then, when the bank notices that it has your name on the deposit slip, they take it out of your account without your knowledge or permission, even when they know for sure you weren't the robber.

    Banks are stealing from their customers when they are robbed. When "identity theft" is treated as it really is, simple fraud, then the world will be a better place. If Congress had balls (and they don't have balls, just pockets with checks in them from the banks), they'd pass a law where every contact with a customer because of a fraudulent account opened by a 3rd party earned them a $100 fine to be paid to the customer, they'd figure out security pretty damn quick. Instead, it's cheaper to screw the lives of their customers (or often, even non customers) because they are too cheap and lazy to have actual security.

    "Identity theft" is where the bank performs legalized fraud to harm people because the bank got robbed due to their own negligence.

  5. Re:Really now? by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I opened my bank account (here in Australia) I had to go into the branch physically and sign up for it, including showing various forms of ID.

    The only reason the US isn't as strict is that the banks have used their powerful influence to make sure that nothing gets in the way of their ability to offer vast amounts of credit (home loans, car loans, personal loans, credit cards etc) to anyone and everyone.

    They want to make getting a credit card as easy as possible.