posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by anon72
See that is the thing. You are laying 100% of the blame on LifeLock, and none on the person (the CEO) who was protected.
There have been two members including myself who have explained the LifeLock is doing a good job. Another member explained how to do what LifeLock is
doing to get the same results. For me same with the other poster it is easier to pay and let someone else do the paper work while I deal with the
hassle of getting a loan.
As another poster said nothing is 100% secure no matter how tight you think you have something locked up someone can find a way to take it.
Now as for the CEO he plastered his SS number all over the place. His number was used because of this. Myself and the other poster as well as numerous
others using LifeLock do not post our SS numbers and we are enjoying an extra bit of security.
Also we have to look at the fact that the CEOs SS number has only been stolen 13 times. How many times do you suppose there was an attempt though? You
think only 13 people have ever tried to use his SS number seeing that it was plastered all over? I would wager that number is nearly 100 times greater
if not more.
Facts are nothing is 100% secure. Facts are also that he number could have been used far greater times then just 13 if not for the measures that were
taken by LifeLock. The smartes thing to do is not plaster your number all over the place.
Either they told him they would cover/protect him 100% or they thought (at first) they had a security measure that was 100% which is not possible.