Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Privacy Security News Technology

LifeLock Spokesperson's Stolen ID Inspires Lawsuits 217

OrochimaruVoldemort writes "It seems as though LifeLock isn't as secure as Todd Davis makes it out. According to a LifeLock spokesman, his identity has been stolen. For two years, Davis has been daring hackers to steal his ID. Looks like he got what he wanted. CNN reports: 'Now, LifeLock customers in Maryland, New Jersey and West Virginia are suing Davis, claiming his service didn't work as promised and he knew it wouldn't, because the service had failed even him.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LifeLock Spokesperson's Stolen ID Inspires Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • TWO FREAKING YEARS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gotung ( 571984 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @02:38PM (#23509114)
    The guy has been throwing out his social security number (often in television advertisements) for 2 whole years and only once did anybody end up getting any money out of it.

    And that person got it from a payday check cashing place at that.

    Not exactly a reputable type of business in general.

    I'd say his service works pretty well based upon that track record.
  • Duh. Just Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frosty-B-Bad ( 259317 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @02:41PM (#23509164) Homepage
    who really thinks some 3rd company can block all access to your information? Even if they had access to your credit file, its all in the past, so it would take a month to figure it out, while your credit score gets lowered, then all this company could do is pay to fix/remove it, more like insurance than any sort of blocking; then the "big 3" credit mongrels will sort out the problem after said company contacts them, and after I'm sure you have to call/fax them all this info, signed in triplicate, so in the end you just gave LifeLock money for a false feeling of security, because they have no higher ability to repair your credit file than another one has to destroy it. think about it people. Really?
  • by webrunner ( 108849 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @02:41PM (#23509168) Homepage Journal

    claiming his service didn't work as promised and he knew it wouldn't, because the service had failed even him.

    Isn't the fact that he got his identity stolen due to use of the system more or less hard proof that he didn't know it wouldn't work?
  • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Thursday May 22, 2008 @02:43PM (#23509196) Homepage Journal
    Uh, yeah, but there are a LOT of payday check cashing places.

  • by sakdoctor ( 1087155 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @02:44PM (#23509238) Homepage
    ...cause seriously, it's bullshit. I mean this idea that my "identity" can be stolen. What this seems to be about to be is accountability. If a bank gives out money because someone duped them into believing that they were me, then the buck should stop with them. Their fuck up, their loss in a sane world.
  • In other news ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wsanders ( 114993 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @02:44PM (#23509240) Homepage
    .. I drove my car into a tree at 70 MPH and I got hurt. Fuckers!

    Although you do have to be a bit of chump to pay $10 per month to lock your credit, the value is that the company will do all the work if your identity does get stolen. So unless the company is incompetent at that, I declare these people to be a bunch of whiners, with some ambulance chasing douchebag lawyer probably promising them great riches if they win.
  • by treeves ( 963993 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:00PM (#23509432) Homepage Journal
    Yes, before it happened.
    But he made commercials promising it would work AFTER it had failed.
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:02PM (#23509482) Journal
    I hear it on XM radio all the time.
  • by Uncle Focker ( 1277658 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:09PM (#23509580)
    Exactly. All this company is doing is periodic credit report checks and to put a credit lock on the customers credit information. All of this the consumer can do on their own for a fraction of the cost and will be just as secure. But then again companies like LifeLock would rather you not know about these options since you no longer line their pockets.
  • Re:Great secuity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:10PM (#23509602)

    Haven't tried actually getting the service, but you can enter any true statement in between the or's for the $0 annual charge (i.e. ' or 1 or ', ' or 2+2=4 or ' etc.). Whoever designed that form made some major goofups.
    And if they took that much care about that form, you can imagine how much quality and attention to detail the rest of their proprietary credit protection services have to offer.

    Oops, I guess I was the 800 lb. elephant in the room.
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:31PM (#23509910) Journal
    The issue is that he became a victim of identity theft quite a while ago, and not just once but many times. He advertises that his company will protect you from identity theft, but it quite clearly doesn't. Because he himself was a victim, but he continued to advertise that he was being protected, he obviously knew his service didn't work, so promoting it as such is false advertising. There's also the issue that the company apparently is making claims about the services it provides that it doesn't actually provide.
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:39PM (#23510036) Journal
    Public Key Infrastructure, it's not just for the internet anymore!
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @03:58PM (#23510366) Journal
    I can't decide if this is someone trolling, a clever personal attack (utilizing /. to do your dirty work), or a genuine moron.
  • HA!!! Goes to show (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kcredden ( 1007529 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @04:09PM (#23510530) Homepage
    As soon as I started hearing this, I thought this is a load of...well you know. I knew very well, there is no way possible that you can make an unhackable Internet connected computer system, at least not without HUGE costs (government maybe?) Especially because the way these companies do it. I doubt there was any encryption, much less firewalling, and other security. Just goes to show, P.T. was right on the money here. Best way to not be ID ripped off? Don't store your ID online, period. No cracker can get in, if it's not connected to the net. - Kc
  • by globaljustin ( 574257 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @04:52PM (#23511070) Journal

    good example of how litigious our society is

    I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, but torts are way down on the list of court reform issues that need to be addressed. Federal, State, and local Attorney's offices are the worst offender here, with large companies being a close second. Our criminal justice system is basically a plea bargain system now, it's so gamed and rigged by the DA's that any notion of a person accused of a crime having a 'fair day in court' is reserved only for the very rich who can afford $50,000+ lawyers. The RIAA, MPAA with their frivolous lawsuits are just as bad.

    The common thread here is that the courts have become another way to abuse everyday citizens in our country for political and financial gain, or even worse, for Public Relations.

    To the lawsuits mentioned in this story, I think the litigants in this lawsuit deserve their day in court. Part of me is glad his identity was stolen. Anyone who knows about how identity theft works (even at a cursory level), knows that the services this guy was pedaling were complete vaporware. His company was taking advantage of a climate of fear and he inadvisably believed his own hype. Granted, courts do get it very wrong sometimes, and we always need to make sure we provide ways to rectify those situations, but I do not think this case is in that territory.

    It is wrong to mislead people using their irrational fears and ignorance. Yes. It is wrong. Alot of people in our society seem to think that it's ok to do this...that's what I think needs reform!
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @04:56PM (#23511128) Journal

    how is that in the summary exactly?
    ... the summary didn't say anything at all about stealing his identity being legal. It's that he's being sued for essentially selling a product he knows is snake oil. The only reason identity theft is even an issue here is because that's what his service is supposed to prevent against (and demonstrably doesn't).
  • Re:the nerve (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @08:41PM (#23513164)
    Similarly, I have it on good information that certain businesses calling themselves "taxi services" charge a few dollars per trip to convey people from one location to another, even though consumers can walk for free.

    Great, and when you hire one of these so called "taxi services" and they show up with a rickshaw and you get there at walking speed, are you going to feel cheated? After all, they never guaranteed a specific speed, and they got you there at exactly the same time as if you'd walked yourself, but you saved the trouble of walking. That's worth an eternal fee, right?
  • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday May 22, 2008 @10:44PM (#23513770) Journal
    I guess you should look at their site and read what they are claiming. Of course they could have changed things because of the court cases but it seems pretty clear to me. First, they are claiming that if their service fails they will pay up to 1 mill to set it straight. You would know it failed when there wasn't a fraud alert on your credit report when something happens. At least that is the way it is represented as of now.

    So if a clerk fails to check ID or doesn't run the credit report, their service worked and it was a failure outside it. But supposedly, they contest it for you and all you have to do is tell them about it.

    The CEO even claims the Texas incident is proof life lock works because the clerk failed to verify the guys identity and the service took care of everything for him. He wasn't out a dime more then the cost of the service and didn't waist any time with the incident.

    Second, It says it stops you from being a "victim of identity theft". That could be interpreted in many ways. Is a victim someone who has had someone else attempt to use their personal information or is a victim someone who has had to pay fees and spend endless hours as well as being denied a loan for something else because someone used their personal information. It is sort of like if someone attacks you and punches you. You would/might be a victim unless you signed up for a cage match or knowingly stepped in a boxing ring as an opponent of someone skilled in that art. You would/might be a victim if you were minding your own business, you probably wouldn't be one if you punched the other guy first. So there is some interpretation going on here.

    From the adds, I agree with you. But after reading their website , I'm not sure if that really is the case. I think it will be interesting to see what the courts determine.

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.