Here's some information suggesting that fear of sexual predators online might be out of hand. According to them, it's not that random or unavoidable.

It certainly appears that way. There's almost no content at http://www.igotmyidentitystolen.com/, just ads and links to Lifelock.com.

If it really is a front-site, then Lifelock's advertising campaign is even more aggressive than I thought! I already knew they advertise heavily on websites, but I've seen comments and reviews on many websites that read more like planted ads than actual reviews.

Case-in-point, some guy that left a nice long comment complaining about my views on fraud alerts who's website has another giant ad for Lifelock that's supposed to be a "review", but with all the ads, it's hard to believe that he's impartial.

They must be making money hand over fist!

No offense to the UK, but they've not got the best history when it comes to personal privacy. That's why when I heard that the recent call to create a national DNA registry has been rejected, I was pleasantly surprised!

Of course, they still have their problems. The existing DNA registry is filled with data from criminals, but also people who were only suspects. Obviously criminals should have a reduced set of privacy rights, but people who have never been convicted is another story entirely. Still, props to the UK for having the brains to reject such a flagrant rights violation.

(H/T to Privacy.org for the link)

A judge just ruled against the RIAA's theory of "making available". What this means is that the RIAA can't pursue a lawsuit solely on the fact that someone has a song available for download, but that someone actually downloaded it from them.

This one ruling could derail future (and past?) RIAA lawsuits and make filesharing a whole lot safer for the masses. Interestingly enough, the judge also helpfully offered the defendant a bunch of other possible defences that they could have used which the judge (presumably) would have ruled in their favor with.

Lifehacker has an interesting article about managing your online reputation. They talk about how to tell when new information about you surfaces (setting up a Google alert) and how to amend or respond to negative information. There are also ways to artifically improve the way you're viewed online (your own blog).

It's a good read for anyone who's concerned about what people will find when searching for your name online.

This is about as clear as anyone has described the subprime mortgage lending issue so far.

(H/T to The Consumerist for the link)

Because of fears of data sharing, data loss, and inappropriate disclosure, people are circumventing their doctors and insurance companies when getting DNA tests. Smart people.

Can and would they use your DNA results against you? Do credit card companies raise your rates according to unrelated things on your credit report? Do insurance companies raise your rates due to traffic tickets that have little to do with telling how good or safe a driver you are?

Like I said, avoiding a record of your DNA is a smart idea.

By the way, Gattica is a great movie that describes what a future of DNA discrimination would look like.

According to an Associate Press article, it's quite common for employees to snoop through customers' personal data.

Vast computer databases give curious employees the ability to look up sensitive information on people with the click of a mouse. The WE Energies database includes credit and banking information, payment histories, Social Security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and energy usage. In some cases, it even includes income and medical information.

Experts say some companies do little to stop such abuses even though they could lead to identity theft, stalking and other privacy invasions. And companies that uncover violations can keep them quiet because in many cases it is not illegal to snoop, only to use the data for crimes.

But of course, if they didn't store all that unecessary data, this would be far less of an issue.

(H/T to The Consumerist for the link)

I can't stand these companies that take advantage of a problem to make some money. Lifelock is that company where the CEO posted his Social Security Number with a challenge to take his identity (which someone promptly did). If you've been considering getting the service, wait. First realize what you're paying for.

If you were to go to their site and read through what they actually do, you'll find that you're not getting much for your money.

1. They place fraud alerts. The problem is, fraud alerts are worthless and do absolutely nothing to protect you from ID theft.
2. They renew the fraud alerts every 90 days. Note that this isn't actually a separate benefit, but they sure seemed to want to have six benefits to their service instead of just five.
3. They remove your name from pre-screened credit card offers. You can do it yourself, freely, and quickly at optoutprescreen.com. Also note that Lifelock fails to mention that this is a one time benefit and not something that you should be paying monthly for.
4. They order your credit reports once per year which is easy for them becuase they can use the free annual credit report you are due by law. The bad part here is that if you wanted to use the very clever advice of getting your report from one of the companies every four months so you can keep a semi-constant tab on your credit, you can't. Lifelock blew your free coupons all at once.
5. They'll keep a list of the companies you have credit cards and such with so you can quickly call them if your wallet is stolen. The FDIC has a great guide about how to do this yourself including the advice to carry a bare-minimum of cards and information and to make your own call-down list.
6. Lastly, insurance.

So to sum up, they give you useless fraud alerts and will renew said useless alerts on a regular basis. They'll order your federally mandated free credit reports for you saving you a whopping 20 minutes of time per year. They put you on a list that prevents many pre-screened offers which is a one-time 5 minute cost to them. They'll keep a list of all the companies you should contact if you lose your wallet though if you have so many to contact that it's that hard for you to do yourself, I'd be more concerned about the number of credit cards you have. And of course, they're an insurance provider.

When all is said and done, Lifelock is nothing more than credit theft insurance with little more benefit. And rather than pay a monthly fee for insurance, you are far better off getting a Credit Freeze which actually does protect against ID theft rather than just try to clean it up after the fact. Factor in that a freeze is a fraction of the cost of insurance (and free in some cases), Lifelock just doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Let's hope the hype dies down soon and we can watch Lifelock drift into business oblivion. The sooner the better.

Related topic(s):

An Open Challenge to Todd Davis of Lifelock
The Credit Monitoring Ripoff
Bogus Lifelock Sites Litter the Web
Class Action Suit Against Lifelock
Lifelock Adds a REAL Service!?
Another Class Action Suit Against Lifelock

Congress sticks their noses into a lot of things they shouldn't and not where they should. They are corrupt, inept, and won't do much to protect Americans unless it will make a positive affect on their careers or bank accounts.

Now they're looking at cyberbullying and it's hard to say if that's a good thing or not. Given their history, chances are that it's not.

I…. I just don't have the strength to explain why this is a bad idea today. "Do no evil". Yeah… ok. You forgot about, don't do something that will make it easy for evil people to do evil, but I guess that wouldn't look as good as a company motto.

Oh, but don't worry! Your data will be protected by your Google account password! I feel better already…

Data breaches are common, but shouldn't be. They could easily stem the flow by putting better security in place, taking personal data offline, stop sending employees home with laptops that have personal data on them, and, above all stop storing our data once you no longer have need of it (you can't lose my credit card number if you don't have it).

Anyway, class action suits don't often work so one man decided to take a company to small claims court instead (and won!). A $700 settlement might not seem like much, but as he says:

…it was likely more than most consumers who filed class-action lawsuits ever received (after attorney fees are paid) and it would be received much more quickly.

Good point. The next time I see any kind of data breach notification that affects me, I'll give it a try and see what happens.

(H/T to The Consumerist for the link)

For some reason, eBay has given the cult of Scientology free access to their servers so they can delete auctions that would have allowed people to get emeters for less money. Of course, the reason for the cult to want to do this is very clear (money), but why eBay would cooperate with them is another matter entirely.

Just as AOL was the first to go to unlimited Internet access in the 90's thus changing the way Internet service is charged, Verizon is making that step in the wireless communications field. All I can say is that it's about damn time.

Wireless companies have been robbing people for years with their ridiculous rate plans and minute to minute charges. Now that they're going flat rate, chances are that the prices will come down just like they did for Internet service so many years ago.

Good for them! They have more guts than the senate at least. Let's hope they're smart enough to block any bills that have retro-active immunity as well.

Bush of course, did not take the news well and accused them of being terrorist supporters as usual:

“Our intelligence professionals are working day and night to keep us safe,?? Mr. Bush said, “and they’re waiting to see whether Congress will give them the tools they need to succeed or tie their hands by failing to act.??

So says the #1 enemy of American freedom (or #2 if you count Congress). Thanks Bush.

(H/T to Privacy.org for the link)

A while back we were hearing stories of teens setting ringtones to frequencies that most adults couldn't hear. Now the tables are turning and there are some people who are using the same technique to chase young people away!

While very funny and an ironic twist on the ultrasonic ringtone idea, it has some legitimate drawbacks that are leading some to call for the devices to be banned.

The £500 Mosquito device has been installed at some 3,500 locations across the country since it first went on sale in January 2006. It emits an irritating, high-pitched sound that can only be heard by children and young people up into their early twenties, forcing them to move on.

(H/T to Slashdot for the link)

Today on CNN, they are reporting that the Clinton campaign might be stalled due to lack of money. I say it's ridiculous and wrong that it requires so much money to run for President. It should not be a matter of who can put out the most ads. In fact, it should be illegal for prospective politicians to advertise. They should each have a website sponsored by the government that enforces fairness across all the candidates sites and provides their stances on major issues.

End rant.

Another data breach, blah, blah, blah.

Remember to freeze your credit and never have to worry about this stuff again.

The New York Times is running an article about Facebook's data retention issues. If you post to Facebook, even if you delete your account later, they keep the data available for public viewing.

It took Mr. Das about two months and several e-mail exchanges with Facebook’s customer service representatives to erase most of his information from the site, which finally occurred after he sent an e-mail threatening legal action. But even after that, a reporter was able to find Mr. Das’s empty profile on Facebook and successfully sent him an e-mail message through the network.

Just wanted to cover some recent protests against the cult of Scientology.

Note that the article references one of my recommended movies, "V for Vendetta", which was an excellent movie about resisting an oppresive totalitarian government.

(H/T to Digg.com for the link)