LifeLock protecting personal information or disseminating it.

I received the information below from one of the members of SOSEN. It’s hard to believe that a company that is dedicated to protecting personal information would so disregard the safety of a disfavored group as to put their family members into a danger of collateral damage. I believe that word-of-mouth is a good way to advertise good or bad for a company. Perhaps LifeLock hasn’t realized that there are 850,000+ people on the registry and that over 3 million family members are also affected, not to mention friends and employers. I would suggest that anyone, whether they are on the registry or they have a friend or family member that is on the registry stop doing business with this company, but that’s just my personal opinion.

“You won’t believe this. My family has recently suffered an identity theft situation. As a result my parents signed up for Life Lock. After an hour of providing personal information they completed their enrollment. Within an hour they received a notice: Safety Alert. Dear customer we want to inform you of sex offenders residing in your area, and that a sex offender has used your address for their registered address with local law enforcement. That of course is me. They were so angry they called and screamed at the representative on the phone and it took forty minutes to cancel. Here is the big question…. What the hell does a sex offense have to do with identity theft?!!!! One more company utilizing the registry to instill fear and place our lives in danger by vigilante justice warriors! This is unbelievable. It isn’t enough to be on a web based registry now companies are going to exploit us for their personal gain. They even give a way to track the gps of sex offenders in your neighborhood! My friends we have got to start taking bigger actions, seeking any avenue for funding, and take the registry down before our time has run out. This is only the beginning.”

You can be sure that LifeLock didn’t put any information out according to whether there are burglars, drug dealers, drunk drivers, con artists or any of the other highly dangerous criminal groups, no they only chose to pass out information about the group that has a re-offense rate of less than 1% and is the least dangerous group to re-offend of all criminal classes.

Note if this article comes to the attention of LifeLock I suggest that they take a look at the other articles on this site (SOSEN.ORG), maybe between the loss of income and the true facts about people on the registry as well as the collateral damage to family membersĀ  they will choose to change their stance, but then again maybe they are run by a bunch of bigots who don’t care about facts, only time will tell.

9 comments for “LifeLock protecting personal information or disseminating it.

  1. The Inquiring Mind
    August 22, 2016 at 6:59 am

    LifeLock, a minion of the SO industrial complex? And this begs another question in my mind, why the hell would any private for profit business even concern themselves with this issue? In my opinion, the CEO of LifeLock is a dumb-ass. If I were the CEO of this company I would see the 850,000 U.S. registrants as potential customers because if there were ever a group of people who needed their ID protected would be this group of people. “NOTE TO CEO OF LIFELOCK, YOU’RE MISSING OUT ON 850,000 POTENTIAL NEW CUSTOMERS PAL!!!” And another question in my mind is—what the hell would be LifeLock’s motivation for such a business practice, i.e., alerting their customers of SOs in their community? Are they acting as de facto law enforcement? Call themselves snitching out some body—what? What would they have to gain? Is not the public already aware of their ability to access their particular state SO registry website to find out if an SO is living in their community? I mean, the state itself blares a loud enough horn to make sure SOs can’t just blend in like ordinary people. So again, why would a private for profit business want to act in such a manner? The only thing I can see is: 1) LifeLock’s upper management has a personal interest in SO issues (maybe one or more of them were molested as childern by uncle Joe or cousin Jim) and therefore come down on the side of proponents of SO laws, or 2) they are being paid to do this by some shadowy, clandestine organization bent on world SO domination. What the “F”??? Seriously LifeLock? Doesn’t this practice kind of goes against your business model? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves and I really feel sorry for you people. I mean, where is the bottom for all this??? LOL! Probably not a bottom, look at Gov Cuomo in NY. I mean seriously—ban PokemonGo from SOs? So I guess terrorist fly jumbo jets into your very tall buildings there are not a concern anymore and you can now focus your attention on who plays PokemonGo, I mean “What the “F” are you people thinking?

    • WantsToHelp
      September 2, 2016 at 3:23 pm

      There was an article or paper posted on one of the registrant-related websites some time ago… and I apologize, I can’t even remember what to look for to find it… in which lifelock was offering a service to various law enforcement agencies in which they proposed to run registrant information in the same way credit information was run to provide a real time alert system on any registrant that appeared ready to violate registration rules. There were triggers that were considered red flags, such as if a phone record showed one address, but a vehicle registration showed a different address…and many other flags that they set and they basically would monitor real time changes in registrant movement and information in the same way they monitored credit issues to flag anything out of the ordinary. So I would assume that if Lifelock is doing this scare tactic regarding registrants, it’s to create demand for another product they’ve already started developing and selling.

  2. mike r
    August 22, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    sure seems like a defamation law suit not for releasing what our government is using but for implying that we are a current danger to the public which the courts and numerous others say is exactly what dissemination of this information projects which has been and can be proven to be universally untrue. sounds like defamation to me

    • Will Bassler
      August 22, 2016 at 8:35 pm

      at the very least it opens the door for a false light lawsuit
      For defamation, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:

      The defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another.
      The statement was injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation.
      The statement was false.
      If the plaintiff is a public figure, or was involved in some newsworthy event or some other event that engaged the public interest, then the defendant must have made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

      In a false light claim, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:

      The defendant published some information about the plaintiff.
      The information must portray the plaintiff in a false or misleading light.
      The information is highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
      The defendant must have published the information with reckless disregard as to its offensiveness.

      A false light claim is usually easier to bring than a defamation claim. Take, for example, a newspaper article about the issue of child molestation in certain churches. If the editor includes a photograph of an innocent priest who has not been accused of or otherwise associated with child molestation, the newspaper may be liable for false light – the inclusion of the photograph implies that the priest is involved in child molestation – but not for defamation, as there was no false statement made. In a defamation action, the newspaper-defendant would simply assert that no statement was actually made about the photographed priest and child molestation.

      As you can you probably tell, false light is a powerful cause of action for a plaintiff because it allows for a holistic assessment of published information and the context in which such information is placed. A great deal of potentially injurious commentary merely implicates or speculates, but doesn’t go so far as to make a direct, false statement.

      False light demands that the defendant has made the implication or misleading statement/disclosure with reckless disregard. This is a high standard. Defamation, on the other hand, only demands the reckless disregard standard if the plaintiff is a public figure or limited public figure.
      Truth is a complete defense to defamation. False light is affected by the truth defense differently. A defendant’s true statement about a plaintiff may not be used to save the defendant if the implication is false. However, if the defendant’s implication about the plaintiff is true, then it will serve as a defense to a false light claim.

  3. kayt
    August 22, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Maybe this will be of help to someone:

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/specific_search/LifeLock

    Then search for the extended search for LifeLock on ripoffreport.com. I’m not sure if I should post more here, so I won’t.

  4. mike r
    August 23, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Will you are a wealth of information thanks for that detailed response it is very educational for me and others just like all your post have been..I knew there must be some kind of legal action someone could take on these organizations and individuals I wonder how effective such a suit would be..it seems like a no brainer that these organizations and individuals are projecting us in a false lite and with all the evidence that’s now out there that they should’ve know that it is a false lite and that they are actually desamating it with reckless disregard for the truth and that their actions are causing great detrimental affects.

  5. Scott
    August 24, 2016 at 4:48 am

    One part of me wants to feel sorry for those who were victims of identity theft and another part of me says not to feel sorry for them. In this case, Prejudice certainly is at hand and if i were a business man, i wouldn’t care who my business went to as long as whatever charges that were billed to them, were paid in full.

    I am currently battling this feeling especially when SOs names are posted publicly with information that is simply no use to anyone. It is pretty sad when the world we live in has lost the sense of Grace for another individual when a wrong is made.

    Let society start learning what coming along side each other is and be in support and holding ones actions as a learning experience and yet have safe guards in place with knowledge of what to do when faced with the individual circumstance.

    I can see the part where punishment is valid, but once they paid their dues to society it shouldn’t matter anymore as long as those who have a beef with a specific charge has put safeguards in place. Their has to be a reason why the individual was let out of Prison/Jail.

  6. mike r
    August 29, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    sorry I didn’t realize that Wolf was the writer here…everyone that writes for this site thank you all for all your intelligent and articulate articles and responses..very educational and useful…

    • LJ77
      August 31, 2016 at 6:35 am

      Thank you as well Mike. The deal is LifeLock deals in fear. The fearful customer is going to feel comforted that the company is “protecting” them from future harm through awareness. Problem is they don’t realize they are 14 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a law enforcement officer. Check out the CATO studies. I think the time has come for us to start considering “strange bedfellows” to align with for our cause. George Soros maybe? We can’t fight the machine without money, none of us has any, so where then will it come from? Friends this is only going to get worse, the only course we have is to seek out the financing. Who else has a suggestion?

Comments are closed.