Feds are going after ID theft protector LifeLock: Here's why

Birmingham News ^ | 7/23/15 | Leada Gore

[Ken H]

I use Experian credit monitoring service, which I gather is similar to LifeLock.

I also have a credit security freeze in place with the big 3, which means NO information is accessible from credit inquiries.

[TADSLOS]

Probably going to make fools out of the so-called government cyber security “experts”.

[Auntie Dem]

I think Lifelock is deceptive. I signed up with one of their programs thinking I was going to pay $19.95 a month. I wasn’t paying attention to my bank statements for a month or two, by the time I checked it they had been charging me almost $60 a month! Turns out they upcharged me for a premium program I didn’t want, plus added my wife to it, which I also didn’t want, which doubled the cost.

I would rather have been hacked, the thieves would have stolen less than Lifelock. At least my bank could have recovered what thieves stole.

[old-ager]

Lifelock has heavily advertised on the Rush Limbaugh show.

[Amendment10]

This is déjà vu of Y2K problem.

And there may be a major constitutional problem with federal government investigating this issue. More specifically, LifeLock seems to be providing insurance. And if such is the case, and regardless what lawless Obama’s activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare insurance for example, please consider the following.

The Supreme Court has historically clarified that insurance is not commerce but a contract, the point being that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce (1.8.3) does not extend to regulating insurance, regardless if parties negotiating insurance contract are domeciled in different states.

"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869.

Note that the states can grant the corrupt feds the specific power to regulate ID theft issues by appropriately amending the Constitution.

But it remains that the legal system’s tradition advice for consumers, “let the buyer beware,” is probably the best remedy for concerns about how LifeLock conducts business.

[catnipman]

lifelock is basically a scam:

http://www.amazon.com/LifeLock-Identity-Theft-Protection-Starter/product-reviews/B004KKSUS0

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/privacy/lifelock.html

http://www.thegeekprofessor.com/lifelock-sucks/

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/LifeLock/Tempe-Arizona-85603/LifeLock-Service-Doesnt-Work-LifeLock-stores-your-personal-data-on-their-server-LifeLock-334309

https://www.google.com/search?q=lifelock+scam+OR+ripoff&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[TurboZamboni]

So is 1800 Flowers. Horrible experience with them.

[BobL]

They advertise on Rush, par for the course.

[Amagi]

Once upon a time when the government went after an entity it was immediately assumed there was some illegality or impropriety being investigated.
That is no longer the first thought by many Americans, and that is very troubling.