Comments on: Positive for Lifelock, Experian, a loss for consumers http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/ The views of one man on security, privacy and anything else that catches his attention Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:03:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Rich94061 http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-5918 Rich94061 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:58:35 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/#comment-5918 There seems to be a very simple solution to this lawsuit. Lifelock should pay the credit companies a fee to process the fraud alerts OR Esperian could offer this service for a fee. There seems to be a very simple solution to this lawsuit.
Lifelock should pay the credit companies a fee to process the fraud alerts OR Esperian could offer this service for a fee.

]]> By: idblackbox.com http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-5364 idblackbox.com Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:18:30 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/#comment-5364 I also understand businesses are in business to make money. But also agree with JOS. With the credit agencies who sell the very information that should be protected, they are careless with it. Companies like Lifelock that have to be created should be the biggest and most obvious sign that our own information is not handled securely. I also think that getting a FREE credit report only ONCE a year is absurd. Too many things can take place in a years time. Everyone should be entitled to a free credit report every month! It is also obvious that the credit agencies don't make the process easy for an every day person to file the necessary paperwork for the fraud alerts either. Not impossible of course, but not made easy either. The most beneficial solution would be to allow individuals an opt out feature after the first time their identity was stolen. What would this do? It would provide an incentive to the credit agencies to protect individuals based on potentially lost revenue. It would also reduce the potential for the individual to have their identity stolen ever again. I also understand businesses are in business to make money. But also agree with JOS. With the credit agencies who sell the very information that should be protected, they are careless with it. Companies like Lifelock that have to be created should be the biggest and most obvious sign that our own information is not handled securely. I also think that getting a FREE credit report only ONCE a year is absurd. Too many things can take place in a years time. Everyone should be entitled to a free credit report every month!

It is also obvious that the credit agencies don’t make the process easy for an every day person to file the necessary paperwork for the fraud alerts either. Not impossible of course, but not made easy either.

The most beneficial solution would be to allow individuals an opt out feature after the first time their identity was stolen. What would this do? It would provide an incentive to the credit agencies to protect individuals based on potentially lost revenue. It would also reduce the potential for the individual to have their identity stolen ever again.

]]> By: Jos http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-5363 Jos Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:24:38 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/#comment-5363 Mark, I think the point is that Experian and the other agencies are busy protecting a revenue stream that they never should have had in the first place: selling consumer data. Fraud alerts never would have gotten so popular (thus creating the business opportunity LifeLock chose to pursue, and the costs that Experian complains about so loudly) if consumers' data weren't for sale to anyone interested in purchasing it, opening up huge holes that allow for the creation of fraudulent accounts as well as the general spamming of America with credit card offers. If, instead, I were able to lock my account simply, easily, and permanently (moreover, if this were--gasp!--the default!), Experian's costs would drop through the floor (no more processing paperwork every three months) and they wouldn't need to worry about LifeLock. Except, of course, that this would prevent them from selling my data off the back of a truck. I appreciate that businesses need to protect their revenue streams, but this seems like an area where creating revenue is directly in opposition to the welfare of the consumer. If Experian can't find a way to generate revenue that doesn't involve harming the consumers they're supposed to be protecting, then perhaps this isn't an area of business that should be privatized at all. Mark, I think the point is that Experian and the other agencies are busy protecting a revenue stream that they never should have had in the first place: selling consumer data. Fraud alerts never would have gotten so popular (thus creating the business opportunity LifeLock chose to pursue, and the costs that Experian complains about so loudly) if consumers’ data weren’t for sale to anyone interested in purchasing it, opening up huge holes that allow for the creation of fraudulent accounts as well as the general spamming of America with credit card offers. If, instead, I were able to lock my account simply, easily, and permanently (moreover, if this were–gasp!–the default!), Experian’s costs would drop through the floor (no more processing paperwork every three months) and they wouldn’t need to worry about LifeLock. Except, of course, that this would prevent them from selling my data off the back of a truck.

I appreciate that businesses need to protect their revenue streams, but this seems like an area where creating revenue is directly in opposition to the welfare of the consumer. If Experian can’t find a way to generate revenue that doesn’t involve harming the consumers they’re supposed to be protecting, then perhaps this isn’t an area of business that should be privatized at all.

]]> By: Mark http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-5345 Mark Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:29:06 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2009/10/27/positive-for-lifelock-experian-a-loss-for-consumers/#comment-5345 I appreciate any business that is trying to protect their revenue stream. That is how companies stay in business. The laws were written to allow a consumer to place a fraud alert if they have been a victim or can reasonably expect to be a victim. Placing blanket fraud alerts on all consumer files cost Lifelock practically nothing but increased costs to Experian with no revenue to balance the cost. Mr. Network Security Blog, what part of your income stream will you decide to give away if it also increases your costs of doing business? I appreciate any business that is trying to protect their revenue stream. That is how companies stay in business.

The laws were written to allow a consumer to place a fraud alert if they have been a victim or can reasonably expect to be a victim. Placing blanket fraud alerts on all consumer files cost Lifelock practically nothing but increased costs to Experian with no revenue to balance the cost.

Mr. Network Security Blog, what part of your income stream will you decide to give away if it also increases your costs of doing business?

]]>