LifeLock Agrees To Pay $100 Million Fine In Settlement With FTC (nytimes.com)

New submitter dasgoober writes: Lifelock has agreed to pay $100 million to settle charges that it failed to properly protect user data, the F.T.C. announced on Thursday. This is the second settlement between the company and federal authorities. In 2010, the F.T.C. charged the company with failing to provide strong security measures for personal data. "This settlement demonstrates the Commission's commitment to enforcing the orders it has in place against companies, including orders requiring reasonable security for consumer data," F.T.C .Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. "The fact that consumers paid Lifelock for help in protecting their sensitive personal information makes the charges in this case particularly troubling."

Comments

Guess they learned their lesson

[EzInKy]

"The settlement does not require us to change any of our current products or practices.

Or maybe not.

Re:Guess they learned their lesson

[geekmux]

"The settlement does not require us to change any of our current products or practices.

Or maybe not.

Who gives a shit either way, they deserve a quick corporate death at this point. Let's hope that consumers are smart enough.

Any current or potential customer who trusts them enough to pay for their service is as ignorant as LifeLock is about security.

Re:Guess they learned their lesson

[The-Ixian]

My question is, do the users of LifeLock see any of this money? I am guessing not.

It sort of seems like a huge cash cow for the government to just sue organizations and collect a settlement but not make them change anything... then rinse and repeat.

It would seem to me that this doesn't create a lot of incentive for the government to actually "fix" policies as it is in their interest to keep the system broken so they can keep the cash flowing.

And they say government should be run more like a business...

Re:Guess they learned their lesson

[Penguinisto]

The sad part is, most of them will never have heard of this, and the very few who have won't pay enough attention that it will spur them to action.

Consumer ignorance is the greatest force in modern economics, I fear.

We're left with "particularly troubling"

[geekmux]

"F.T.C .Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. "The fact that consumers paid Lifelock for help in protecting their sensitive personal information makes the charges in this case particularly troubling."

Repeated slap on the wrist punishments and no jail time is what is particularly troubling here and continues to be.

And I don't know why we accept this bullshit at our own expense when this is the repeated outcome. What is it going to take to get corporations to act properly and ethically these days?

Guess that will never happen. Instead, we watch our corrupt government to turn a blind eye to anti-monopoly laws and allowed corporations to invent Too Big to Fail instead, which is the legal cousin of "affluenza", in case you were left wondering just how fucked that corporate concept really is.

Re: We're left with "particularly troubling"

[bill_mcgonigle]

This shouldn't be surprising - the job of governments throughout history has been to privatize gains and socialize losses. That's why governments grant corporations in the first place, by definition. If people would look at historical outcomes instead of the platitudes espoused by seventh-grade government schoolteachers we could start making some real progress towards a civil society.

Oh, but hey, we have microwave ovens and jet airplanes, so we're somehow smarter than the other humans in history so THIS TIME it'll be different.

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[rudy_wayne]

Repeated slap on the wrist punishments and no jail time is what is particularly troubling here and continues to be.

And I don't know why we accept this bullshit at our own expense when this is the repeated outcome. What is it going to take to get corporations to act properly and ethically these days?

Guess that will never happen. Instead, we watch our corrupt government to turn a blind eye to anti-monopoly laws and allowed corporations to invent Too Big to Fail instead

Because any politician who supports sending corporate criminals to prison will be accused of supporting "big government" and will be voted out of office.

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lifelock is not a monopoly, Lifelock is not too big to fail. Not sure what the government's involvement should be. If you think they are a corrupt company that is incompetent, don't do business with them. Is that too difficult for a "big government" guy to get? If your claims are true, tell others and if you are successful, Lifelock will shut down due to lack of customers. No government involved.

I'm more worried about Obamacare. It is a monopoly, too big to fail, incompetently run, and corrupt as hell. Best part is if you decide to not do business with it, the IRS shows up at gun point to take your income for daring to not give them money voluntarily.

See the difference between government being involved and government not being involved? One I can easily ignore, the other could land me in jail. Why can't we complain about the real issues instead of stupid idiotically run companies like Lifelock?

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[truck_soccer]

What is it going to take to get corporations to act properly and ethically these days?

Guess that will never happen

Simple: People need to stop giving their money to corporations that do bad shit. Good luck getting that point across. "Consumers" are called such because they have no other mode to choose from: CONSUME is their only setting. Source: I'm a gamer. The last 5 years were full of shitty, broke, major title releases, and these shitty, broken, major titles were still top sellers. People will buy your thing as long as the commercial tells them to.

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[Locke2005]

"troubling"??? Ms. Ramirez, I believe the word you're looking for is "ironic"!!! Also kinda funny as hell, at least of you're not a Lifelock customer!

Re: We're left with "particularly troubling"

[xenoc_1]

You obviously don't know that there is no such thing as "Obamacare" in terms of it being either a policy you can buy or an entity (never mind not a monopoly) that sells it.

Or you do know and you're then obviously a deliberate liar.

The PP&ACA, AKA the ACA, AKA Obamacare, is a set of laws and regulations about privately-run non-government health insurance policies, with a requirement that most people have to purchase something from their choice of competing (mostly for-profit) companies.

There are lots of flaws, excessive regulations, and overly indirect carrots & sticks in the Affordable Care Act. Yes with a net improvement in the US systems of health care accessibility, but barely so considering the number of moving parts and degree of pandering to the existing inefficient private industry rent-seeking middleman companies that still have their private bureaucrats in between you and your doctor, and are perversely incented not to pay for what you need. It barely fixed things, except for a few people.

But a "monopoly"? GMAFB

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[Locke2005]

Not sure how well basic economicincentives work when your customer base is by definition a self-selecting set of gullible people in the first place...

Re: We're left with "particularly troubling"

[xenoc_1]

But yes, LifeLock should die in a fire.

(LifeLock the company, and a "virtual fire"; not advocating violence!)

As much as I hate the whole Credit Bureau system and concept, at least if you deal directly with TransUnion, Equifax, Experian, ChexSystems, you're dealing with the companies that actually hold and control your credit files. Why the hell would anyone pay a third party service and turn over so much person sensitive information control to an unnecessary service like LifeLock?

Rhetorical question. Answers are "Stupid Muricans" and "Ads on rightwing talk radio".

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[dasgoober]

Probably when they make it impossible for any of the company leaders to sock away any of the money they made, and then add the fines ON TOP of that. So what if the company has to pay $100mil; if the higher-ups who masterminded and carried out the scheme get to keep their hidden bank accounts, houses, cars, and live the life of a 1%er, there's no dis-incentive to do it again.

Re: We're left with "particularly troubling"

[KGIII]

Not long after selling my business and retiring, I did a few simply stupid things like mention how much I'd sold for, who I had donated to, what I planned on doing, etc... Well, someone knew me well enough to scoop my data and dox me. It was kind of invasive because they used that information to post my tax information. I guess, you know, that's kind of legal and all that. My tax information can be found easily enough.

The good thing is, the doxxing party did not want to be a complete prick. (I guess they figured out they were wrong and were apologizing in some way?) They had taken the time to redact my SSN (or someone had) but there was my address, there was my DOB, etc... Fortunately, I was moving soon and so I just didn't forward my mail. I was getting hate mail from certain groups, I'll avoid mentioning them by name here today, for not donating to their pet cause. I know, it sounds odd but some people hate you if you don't support their favorite cause.

I got phone calls, I got pizza, I got gay mailings, I got put on every single charity list on the planet (I think). See, well, I kind of figured I didn't actually *need* all that much money so I thought it'd be nice to give some away to good causes. But no... It's tempting to name and shame but I got slammed by people who didn't like who I donated to and thought I should have given money to their cause instead. I mean slammed. Like come down to the post office and pick up a box of mail every day slammed.

Anyhow, to get to my point... I had to put all my credit on hold. It still is. I don't have a credit line except for three credit cards that I keep for emergencies and benefits (like curb-side service at hotels, list bumps, etc) and I have to actually go through a hell of a lot of work to get a credit line if I want one through the normal channels. Contrary to popular opinion, sometimes a credit line is nice - like a normal one. I can go through my credit union and they don't even check, they just give me what I want but it's not quite the same. I'm always sending my kids some extra money - it'd be awesome to get some air-miles for that and give those to them too. (I can't imagine why I'd carry a balance.)

So, it took quite a bit of work to get all of the various services to lock me down and put a "do not issue credit" type of flag on my account. Obviously, this should be monitored. I do not do so myself, I'm kind of lazy these days. A company that does something like this and lets me do it nice and easily would be nice. It'd be cool to just be able to go to one site and enter a creditor name in and say that they can access my score.

Also, that credit score is kind of bunk. I have a +800 score and it's lower than I used to have as my business was in my name and hardware is damned expensive. I am far more able to repay a credit line now than I've ever been. It was like 850 or so the last time I looked which, I admit, has been a while.

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[pseudorand]

What's "particularly troubling" is -- How the fuck does LifeLock have $100 Million in extra cash to be able to PAY such a fine. Have that many people really fallen for their idiotic commercials? I know I shouldn't underestimate stupidity, but... ya, that's troubling.

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[geekmux]

>Repeated slap on the wrist punishments

A $100 million fine is a "slap on the wrist"? Are you Warren Buffet or something?

Yes, it is a slap on the wrist when you consider the value of a few million consumers privacy and what can be abused with that, which is exponentially larger.

On top of that, even if Lifelock were to shut down tomorrow, the executives would rinse and repeat at another organization. They would even be arrogant enough to call it "Lifelock2" just to prove a point, and there's not a fucking thing you can do to stop them. Criminals laugh in your face and do it again. THAT is how fucked our laws are.

Re:We're left with "particularly troubling"

[geekmux]

Repeated slap on the wrist punishments and no jail time is what is particularly troubling here and continues to be.

And I don't know why we accept this bullshit at our own expense when this is the repeated outcome. What is it going to take to get corporations to act properly and ethically these days?

Guess that will never happen. Instead, we watch our corrupt government to turn a blind eye to anti-monopoly laws and allowed corporations to invent Too Big to Fail instead

Because any politician who supports sending corporate criminals to prison will be accused of supporting "big government" and will be voted out of office.

Ah, "big government" is already here, has been here, and a Congress full of politicians isn't gonna change that shit, so that excuse is dead already.

didn't grease the right palms

[turkeydance]

you gotta pay to play

Tiger proof rocks

[rmdingler]

How could they be trusted after the first settlement?

In a sense, this is protection for the gullible from themselves; admittedly more necessary than one might like to imagine.

Re:Tiger proof rocks

[Captain Splendid]

Trusted? I still want to know why they exist in the first place. Last I checked, most banks weren't in the business of giving away billions in added service fees to a third party.

Ha Ha

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Ha ha ha ha ha...errrr, I mean, "Gosh, that's terrible!"

Serves them right for making claims that they couldn't possibly hope to fulfill.

"We'll keep your identity safe!" ranks right up there with "Lose 50lbs overnight guaranteed!"

And then on top of that, they practice shitty in-house security, making it all the more likely that your data will be stolen and misused? Brilliant.

Re:But... but... but...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The commercial, it said they would protect me and help me? They are expert, the radio ad said they could stop the bad guys!

What they meant is that it would stop the bad guys from having to go after your info bit by bit- Lifelock helpfully aggregated it all in one place so it could be stolen all at once.

Re:You can't outlaw stupid

[rudy_wayne]

Look, there are always going to be a lot of gullible people with too much money.

PT Barnum said a fool and his money is parted easily.

If not this, it would be something else. Google up "See Clearly Method".

Homeopathy, magnets, horoscopes, tattoos, lottery tickets, alternative medicines with unlikely claims are the past times of some people.

You can't outlaw stupid.

Yes there are a lot of stupid, gullible people. But that doesn't change the fact that LifeLock is 100% fraudulent.

How To Really Avoid Identity Theft

[Jason Levine]

As a victim of Identity Theft, I know first hand that you can't avoid the "stolen personal data" portion of Identity Theft. Somewhere, someone is going to store your SSN, DOB, and other information in an insecure database or some disgruntled employee will grab your information (along with a thousand other people's) and sell it to someone for some extra cash. It's sad, but it's getting to be nearly a certainty. (13.1 million victims in 2015, 12.7 million in 2014.)

LifeLock isn't real protection once someone gets your data. To really protect yourself, you need to freeze your credit files. This prevents anyone (you or the identity thieves) from opening new lines of credit on your account. Of course, that also means that you can't open that credit card or refinance that loan without first thawing your credit file (and paying each of the three major credit agencies). Still, it's better than having a collections agency knock down your door because "you" ran up $10,000 in charges and then didn't pay the bill.

Re:How To Really Avoid Identity Theft

[Locke2005]

Security 101: Having the username and password be exactly the same is a bad idea! Which is basically what they are doing by accepting a SSN as id...

Re:How To Really Avoid Identity Theft

[fermion]

Which is the current lifelock business model. Your information will get stolen, but they have the technology and monitoring to insure that any unusual activity will be flagged. Yes, the consumer can do most of this for themselves with little expenditure. Yes, most people over 45 or so don't understand that lifelock is not able to protect data. OTOH, even some tech people think that logging onto their bank with an iPad is going to put them at more risk than have a bank account one can log onto. So at the end of the day this is just another service the people don't need, but makes them feel better.

Re:How To Really Avoid Identity Theft

[The-Ixian]

Yeah, I always wondered why a SS card was a valid proof of identification when applying for a job.

At least with a birth certificate you have a notarized seal...

Re:freeze your own credit for $30

[The-Ixian]

I did this myself after I was caught up in the Target breach.

Obviously, you will never know if it is working, but at least there is the peace of mind knowing that nobody can open new credit lines in your name.

Of course, it doesn't do anything if you have your currently open lines of credit stolen.

Re:But... but... but...

[unixisc]

You don't believe it? They also had a commercial where their CEO announced his social security number, and challenged anyone to try stealing his data

Why are they still in business?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Their whole business is a scam. Having to pay a percentage of the profits in fines still means they retain a percentage.

It's the whole "the fine is less than the gains" crap. Why isn't there a minimum of 120% the realized/expected gains on the fines to corporations.

Re:Why are they still in business?

[The-Ixian]

That would be killing the cow and then they could no longer milk it.

How about paying the money TO THE CUSTOMERS?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The govenment fining the company and keeping the money just makes the company have to charge more and/or cut service for a given fee, adding insult to injury.

Re:How about paying the money TO THE CUSTOMERS?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Learn this now; this is not an oversight. People who still think the government is an institution that is meant to do best for the people they represent is utter nonsense.

My point exactly. Which I was pointing out to others.

I've known this about governments since the '60s. Back in those days the ideas of the Founding Fathers were still occasionally taught in high-end high schools, the writings of critics of government in general - by their and our contemporaries and people from eras in between (such as the historic anarchists), were readily available, and what became the Libertarian Party was just spinning out of the Republican Party (with the help of some of my friends B-) ).

David Friedman was fun. In those days he ran around with a giant fake gold medallion on a chain around his neck, with the inscription "T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L." on it. (Some of those friends were plotting to give him a free lunch, made of such things as salvaged ingredients that were being discarded by supermarkets as too near their end-of-life.) "The Murray Twins" (Bookchin and Rothbard) were always entertaining, and thought-provoking, as well.

Re:But... but... but...

[GrumpySteen]

Funny and insightful. Funsightful +1

Re:You can't outlaw stupid

[Locke2005]

No, no, no, Barnum said "A fool and his money are soon partying!" Unfortunately, the people around him misunderstood him...

Re:But... but... but...

[fahrbot-bot]

You don't believe it? They also had a commercial where their CEO announced his social security number, and challenged anyone to try stealing his data

And LifeLock CEO Todd Davis (SSN on the freaking LifeLock ad graphic in the Wired article) had his identity stolen 13 times - for those that didn't know.

Re:But... but... but...

[parkinglot777]

Their commercial said that "there is no guarantee they can perfectly protect your identity but they are willing to pay up to 1 million dollars if they fail to do so." However, I have no idea whether they stand on their promise because otherwise there wouldn't be a "settlement" in the news here.