 Smokey Bearveritas odium paritPremium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
kudos:4 | LifeLock Banned from Placing Fraud Alerts Softpedia, 28th of May 2009:
"A California judge has banned LifeLock, a company offering identity theft protection services, from placing fraud alerts on its customers' credit profiles. The ruling comes after Experian, one of the three credit reporting bureaus in the U.S., has sued LifeLock, claiming that this practice was violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and costing it money.
A fraud alert has the purpose of letting banks, retailers and other credit granters know that they should perform more serious checks before opening a credit or issuing a credit card in someone's name. A fraud alert usually requires the potential creditor to at least call the individual whose credit profile is tagged.
Under the FCRA, the option of placing a fraud alert on their credit file is offered at no cost to consumers. All someone has to do is contact one of the three credit reporting bureaus, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax. However, an alert of this sort expires after 90 days and has to be renewed, which is somewhat of an inconvenience for people who don't have time to do it themselves.
Arizona-based identity protection company LifeLock offers to place and renew fraud alerts on behalf of its customers for a fee of $10 per month, along with other services. However, Experian claims that, in the process of doing this, LifeLock has indirectly caused the credit reporting bureau to spend millions of dollars to process the alerts.
Judge Andrew Guilford of the Central District of California agreed and temporarily banned LifeLock from engaging in the practice until the full trial. "Congress expressly excused Experian and other credit reporting agencies from placing fraud alerts requested by companies like LifeLock. The court finds that this is a proper interpretation of the plain meaning of the statute," the ruling reads.
Judge Guilford considered that, even though the FCRA allowed third-parties to file fraud alerts on behalf on an individual, this did not include companies, but family members, legal guardians, or attorneys. Other companies, similar to LifeLock, as well as privacy specialists, generally disapproved of this decision."
Story: »news.softpedia.com/news/LifeLock···79.shtml
--
Smokey's Security Forums »www.smokey-services.eu/forums/
Smokey's Security Weblog »smokeys.wordpress.com/
Site Member ASAP - Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals |
|
 siljalineI'm lovin' that double widePremium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC
kudos:17 | Also >
Judge Rules LifeLock’s Fraud Alert Service Illegal
»www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/lifelock/ |
|
Smokey Bearveritas odium paritPremium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
kudos:4 | siljaline, txs for posting additional info.  |
|
siljalineI'm lovin' that double widePremium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC
kudos:17 | Most welcome, Smokey |
|
 dandelionPremium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
kudos:4
 ·Comcast
| reply to Smokey Bear
Having gone through ID theft contacting all those companies (each one requiring something different) etc. finally getting things straight after months, the $10 a month IMO would have been worth it. If the credit reporting companies complain about it costing them money, why don't they extend those alerts to a longer interval i.e. less paperwork for them and the ones applying. Being a little jaded from having to deal with at least two of these credit reporting entities MULTIPLE times for the same request of taking a fraudulent charge off, I am sad to read about this and think it is more in the company's interest rather then the consumer.
--
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
|
|
Smokey Bearveritas odium paritPremium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
kudos:4 | dandelion, well say! |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to Smokey Bear
Sheesh, you would think this would be the DEFAULT.
Call me if I open a new credit line. How hard is that? Chances are, I'm standing in front of you... so call my cell and let's hear it ring. Wow, that's some crazy kinda idea that is.
I think the world is broken.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
| reply to Smokey Bear
However, Experian claims that, in the process of doing this, LifeLock has indirectly caused the credit reporting bureau to spend millions of dollars to process the alerts.
Yet, if the actual consumer does the renewal, it still costs them the same..........correct? BS meter is going off!
--
GuruGuy |
|
|
|
| reply to Smokey Bear
Good riddance to the fradulant advertisments |
|
 angussfPremium
join:2002-01-11
Tucson, AZ
kudos:3 | reply to GuruGuy
said by GuruGuy:However, Experian claims that, in the process of doing this, LifeLock has indirectly caused the credit reporting bureau to spend millions of dollars to process the alerts. Yet, if the actual consumer does the renewal, it still costs them the same..........correct? BS meter is going off! As reported in the Wired article linked above, "Under the 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA, fraud alerts are available for free to any consumer who believes he may have been a victim of identity theft, or is at imminent risk of it."
Seems to me that Lifelock and its brethren are just placing fraud alerts regardless of whether or not their customers believe they're victims (or AIR - 'at imminent risk'), and then automatically renewing the fraud alerts every 90 days -- again, regardless of whether or not ID theft has occurred or is at imminent risk of occurring.
I can see where that might be expensive [grin] -- and where it might be against the law. OTOH if you really are a victim or AIR, you should be able to pay someone to deal with the reporting for you. |
|
 TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4
·Cox HSI
| reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:Sheesh, you would think this would be the DEFAULT. Call me if I open a new credit line. How hard is that? Chances are, I'm standing in front of you... so call my cell and let's hear it ring. Wow, that's some crazy kinda idea that is. I think the world is broken. I agree completely. I've been a Life Lock member for about a year if not longer now and I have to say it seems to work 50/50...
When purchasing a car I was while there to verify my identity as well as when I got my iPhone 3G. I was called when setting up my account.
However, when I got an American Express card I was NOT called, nor was I called when I applied for credit through Alienware and purchased my "school" laptop.
Despite it not "working" half the time, they still have the garuntee that if your identity is stolen they'll fix it, up to $1,000,000.
However, this does seem like a pretty stupid thing as JohnInSJ said. You should have to register your phone number with the credit agency and recieve a call EVERY time no matter what.
--
WIP »bearbonesstudios.blogspot.com/ |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to angussf
said by angussf:Seems to me that Lifelock and its brethren are just placing fraud alerts regardless of whether or not their customers believe they're victims (or AIR - 'at imminent risk'), and then automatically renewing the fraud alerts every 90 days -- again, regardless of whether or not ID theft has occurred or is at imminent risk of occurring. That was what I got from the Wired News article also.
This part of the judge's ruling seems to make sense also.
Judge Guilford considered that, even though the FCRA allowed third-parties to file fraud alerts on behalf on an individual, this did not include companies, but family members, legal guardians, or attorneys. But there should be a quick, easy way for people to monitor and freeze their own credit reports. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·ViaTalk
2 edits | reply to Smokey Bear
I have been with Debix since the state of ohio managed to lose social security number in a computer/hard drive that they have the interns drive around the state in and got stolen. But thats another story. see »www.technewsworld.com/story/5796···43559551 if interested
Anyway a couple weeks ago they announced that because of the CA ruling they would also stop putting fraud alerts in the credit files.
I thought laws are here to protect this. This is just hurts us. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·ViaTalk
1 edit | reply to angussf
We are all "at imminent risk of it" I shred everything that has my personal info on it. From SS numbers to CC numbers. Take outgoing mail to Post office to be mailed. So should I be reasonable safe no State of Ohio is a joke when it comes to security. See my post above.
Identity thieves know that you usually get about a year free monitoring when a breach occurs in security. You don't think they are smart enough to sit on it for 1.5 to 2 years before selling info.
Back in Feb. Batteries.com got hacked and they lost personal info along with credit card informations. About 2 months later they got around to informing people.
So your info may already be out. You just never know. |
|
 NanoprobeCrunching in memory of MomPremium
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula
kudos:1
·magicjack.com
·Skype
| reply to Smokey Bear
If you want to spend $10 bucks I would suggest spending it to freeze your credit with each agency. That way no one can steal your identity even if they have your SSN. When the time comes and you need a credit verification you call the reporting bureau, give them your password to unfreeze your credit and your done. You could do that 12 times a year if needed (but not likely) instead of throwing money away on Lifelock. JMHO
--
The circumstances of life, the events of life, and the people around me in life, do not make me the way I am, but reveal the way I am. Dr. Sam Peeples.
|
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to Smokey Bear
It's utter BS. The CRA's just want to be paid by LifeLock that's all. I highly doubt lifelock was sending in paper forms and if they have to that's the CRA's fault for not modernizing their systems.
Hell to this day I have to work with some 3rd party company for my Equifax report becuase I currently reside in Texas. If I moved 80 miles north to Oklahoma or anywhere else I just deal with Equifax.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to dcurrey
said by dcurrey 
I thought laws are here to protect this. This is just hurts us.
[/BQUOTE :For that answer - you have to define who 'us' is. Credit rating bureaus believe that they are being 'harmed' by having to process all these fraud alerts. They are technically 'free' - so LifeLock built a process to do this (as it needs to be done every 90 days). Credit bureaus 'really' don't care, except that it may be costing them because they allowed (or were forced) to offer 'free' freezes, and now its actually costing them. I suspect 'big business' also has a hand in this, as they would like 'easy access' to credit info - and this slows down the process. Kind of like having RF enabled debit/credit cards, and no signatures for credit purchases below $25. --
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to Smokey Bear
said by Smokey Bear:However, Experian claims that, in the process of doing this, LifeLock has indirectly caused the credit reporting bureau to spend millions of dollars to process the alerts. Bullsh~t.
Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union are incurring "costs" because people are using LifeLock instead of each credit reporting agency's own credit monitoring service. Equifax has one, TransUnion has one for which they run regular and annoying commercials.
Two problems with this: I don't believe any of the agency's monitoring service extends to the other agencies so to get complete coverage, you'd have to pay for subscriptions with all three agencies. Second, does anyone else feel it's a conflict of interest for a company that accumulates people's personal financial profiles to then turn around and charge them to keep those profiles secure??? Their response? A once-a-year free credit report. Whoopee. What about ID theft until the time for the next report rolls around?
The credit reporting industry is not prepared for the security risks that now face it. Their primary purpose is to make money using people's sensitive data. Assuring protection to those consumers is secondary if not tertiary or lower. Someone starts up a service to fill in the gaps and they cry foul. They can't do any better but they sure don't want anyone else trying. The reporting industry reponse to fraud is reactive, not proactive. By the time there's a problem, the consumer has to clean up the mess.
Here's an idea: change the existing federal laws for credit reporting fraud to make fraud alerts on accounts permanent until the consumer removes them, and make it mandatory for all creditors dealing with consumers who have fraud alerts on their accounts to contact the consumer every time. Penalize those who don't. Of course they won't want to do that because it makes it harder to justify peddling their own "security monitoring" services to consumers.
We wouldn't even have the recourse we have now if there hadn't been so many previous cases of consumers getting shafted and spending hours and hundreds of dollars to clean up the mess they likely weren't responsible for in the first place.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to Nanoprobe
I'm not aware of this mechanism--the only thing similar to this that I know of is precisely what Debix and LifeLock are doing. If you know how to contact reporting agencies to have your information password protected, please post a link here as it may benefit others in the forum. If there's a way to freeze my credit at all three agencies so they can't do anything with it without my permission, I'd love to see how that's done.
Are you referring to contacting them to have fraud alerts placed on the accounts? That requires contacting all three agencies every 90 days to maintain that protection. Even then, it's not password protected. It just requires them to contact the consumer for verification prior to a creditor extending credit and as others have said, that protective measure isn't followed 100% of the time.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to fatness
said by fatness:But there should be a quick, easy way for people to monitor and permanently freeze their own credit reports until such time as they feel it is in their best interest to release it. I tweaked your statement a bit.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
