Talk:LifeLock

CNN Headline
Yintercept (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) The current article reads: "In July 2015, CNN headlines FTC: LifeLock protection service doesn't live up to its name"

Headlines are usually written by a copy editor to draw eyes to an article. It is bad form to quote headlines as facts. The CNN Article appears to be a rephrasing of an The FTC Press Release. The Press Release is a more authoritative link. The FTC press release says Lifelock "failed to meet an obligation" regarding data privacy which is different from failing to live up to its name. I suggest replacing CNN link with FTC link and putting this info in the Controversy section.

Dead refs
References for 1, 3, and 4 no longer work (not available). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.242.76 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 September 2007

Proposed deletion
Someone nominated this article for deletion without discussion. I think there's enough reason to keep that it shouldn't be deleted without an AFD discussion. Eseymour 22:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the info about Mr. Davis' identity being stolen. It is both pertinant and hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should NOT be deleted. I saw a Wall Street Journal article about LifeLock and went to its website and never learned any of this information. --Email4jonathan (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article may be the only place on the internet where one can find a useful, concise summary of this company with cited sources. I do not believe this article should be deleted. --Gotnostyle (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article provides good information on the advertised service. Particularly important is the federal court ruling that the credit alerts cannot be placed by this company. --68.83.105.228 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LA Times piece
While it's true the la times no longer has the piece up, some articles with quotes from it exist. For example, one on conservablogs, and a pdf that we can view as html actually is a copy of the post. Maybe 3 should be replaced with a link to the pdf/html? --TIB (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is from television & internet; public data; I have no personal knowledge.
Whereas this, 457 55 5462, is amongst the most advertized numbers, possibly even more than the "sixteen_words", why is it not in the article?

Why is there no idwatchdog  article? < http://idwatchdog.com >.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from television & internet; public data; I have no personal knowledge.

I, hereby, request a factual answer, rather than bad faith deletion.

This can be verified @ more than 1,600 webpages, including:

< http://getmeapprovedtoday.com/?p=73 >;

< http://getmeapprovedtoday.com >.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the social security number from this talk page. Please do not re-add it unless and until consensus is reached to do otherwise.  Social security numbers are extremely sensitive personal data, and as such there must be an extremely compelling case for publishing such information in this encyclopedia.  Yes, the CEO of Lifelock has placed his SSN in advertisements for his company, and that fact is reflected in the article.  But including the actual number here adds nothing to the article.  In fact, it could potentially leave Wikipedia liable to some sort of lawsuit, especially if that CEO decides to stop putting his SSN in the company's ads some time in the future.  Regards, Eseymour (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I do not necessarily understand nor agree; however, I do concede that it is a direct answer to part of my question. I do object to the word "personal", regarding what it implies to how I would obtain it; however, you have implied a concession as to how I'd gotten it.

Therefore, I do accept that.

The humor of your edit makes my comment appear as if a link to something like "Social Insecurity: I've got your Number in Bed; Get your Number into Bed". If anyone ever produces that, you & I should share royalties.

Although, it does not comment on the element of my question regarding watchdog. I do think, contend, that they are relevant, as competition. Both are credible article subjects due to their dominance, prevalence.

I do not necessarily endorse, nor agree with, either of these companies. To what extent I would agree with various elements of what they actually do would be a very complex issue of its own.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A social security number is personal information by definition, just like someone's medical records are personal information. It is information that someone typically keeps to themselves, and which could potentially harm or embarass them if people with bad intentions get ahold of it.  I was not implying that you obtained the information in some nefarious manner.


 * If you think there should be an article about ID Watchdog, be bold and start one. Regards, Eseymour (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

hopiakuta wrote: "Whereas this, XXX XX XXXX, is amongst the most advertized numbers"

Let me guess, his SS number is 867-XX-5309? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Censoring the social security numbers will not do much, since they can still be seen in the page history. I agree that it should be left out of the main article though. —C. Raleigh (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's laughable to think that Wikipedia would be liable to any legal action for the extremely well publicized SSN of Mr. Davis (*cough*457 55 5462*cough*). It is probably the one and only time that this is ever acceptable. -- Ned Scott 09:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article seems weighted heavily towards why this company is bad with very little discussion of what it actually does. Some effort should be made to bring the article in line with WP:NPOV. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean that it contains an equal amount of praise and blame. It merely means that the available reliable published sources are appropriately represented. What info in what reliable published source do you feel is left out? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about some information about what the company actually does? Right now it's all about supposed criminal activity of the company and its founder. Without it, the article is giving undue weight to the negative aspects. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleting facts that are negative doesn't make the point of view neutral. One could argue that your edits are an NPOV violation due to their conceivably favorable view of the subject. There is little discussion of what the company does because the company does very little. The things you deleted were notable and true. I think your NPOV edit is wrong, and that the controversy section that existed before your edits was appropriate, neutral, and more informative than what you have left in its place. 68.190.20.28 (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Maynard?
Why does the article not mention Robert Maynard and his continuing connection to LifeLock? I would think that this is very relevant to the trustworthiness of the company. For details, see and. David (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not add the links yourself? Lots42 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Maynard has not been connected in anyway to LifeLock since he departed in 2007. Not sure why someone or some competitor thinks he is still relevant to the company. He wasn't even relevant five or six years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.47.230 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Update - September 2009
This article needs to be updated due to recent court ruling with Lifelock v. Experian. MSNBC Red Tape Chronicles. I would do it myself, but I have neither the time nor the expertise to do so. Also the judges decision has been redacted and is in the process of being reconsidered. Lifelock is moving forward and is no longer issuing credit alerts on behalf of their clients. Im not really sure what they are doing now, but I do know its not that.  Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me)  15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"It's"
not sure weather "it's" is encyclopedic language. ^b4z^ (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Weather" it's encyclopedic or not doesn't matter; typos can be easily fixed by you rather than having to talk about them on the talk page. Hanxu9 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please neaten up
The sentence "The original complaint brought about by Experian, was ruled to be breaching California law by placing fraud alerts on its customer’s credit profiles." means that the original complaint was ruled to be breaching California law. The phrase "Original complaint" is the subject of that sentence. But the remainder of the paragraph leaves it in doubt was to whether the breaching was done by "the complaint" or was done by Lifelock. Then we have 'The process was said to be costing the credit union millions of dollars a year by “surreptitiously placed hundreds of thousands” of alerts on Experian files “by posing as the consumer,” even when there was no suspicion of identity theft.' I don't think that Experian is a credit-union. It's a credit-reporting bureau, no? A credit-union is something different, isn't it? The phrase "by posing as the consumer" is just plain grammatically muddy. What was posing as the consumer? The "process" was posing as the consumer? Lifelock was posing as the consumer? Who? What? There is a way to put a sentence together by quoting from court papers. This isn't it.68.160.69.34 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Article now reads like an ad
I am requesting reversion to an earlier version with actual content, by someone who has followed the development of this article. I have to wonder whether the current version was written entirely by Lifelock itself.

It seems the article has been sanitized to remove any unfavorable content. Surely there can be a History section with accurate facts.

Parsiferon (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the top section does read like a LifeLock ad. 70.253.68.221 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Marketing update
There should be mention of Celebrity Apprentice using the product in association with a task for the show.--Cooly123 02:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

CEO resigns
This article is in relation to current events.

Wired picked up a story here:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft

I'm gonna shy away from any major edits at this point as I'm biased because I find it absolutely hilarious that his identity was stolen 12 times. AT&T want their money and won't get it due to this company's false advertising. This article could use some organization and cleanup. thanx! Christmasjones25 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Their CEO did not resign.


 * And actually, what's really amazing is that a social security number could be given out so much and the total damage was only in the low thousands. If I were doing marketing for Lifelock, I would trumpet that fact all over the place. Nothing false at all about that. Hanxu9 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Article needs better editing
Some sections and sentences are clearly corporate PR. 70.253.68.221 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate reference link
Blog entry from prominent investor on the FTC vs Lifelock settlement that is pretty insightful and shows what the FTC attempts to accomplish in its settlements: http://whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifelock-settles-with-ftc.html Iamchmod (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead Wired Reference #29
References for 29, Wired Magazine no longer work / page not found. Edited with appropriate relevant replacement source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennmPrice (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It took me two seconds to find the Wired archive link for that. Please take your SEO strategies elsewhere. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on LifeLock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/lifelock_founde_1/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/2008/02/21/experian-lifelock-update-markets-equity-cx_md_0221-markets32.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LifeLock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605054029/http://allthingsd.com/20120910/in-the-vault-former-yahoo-exec-hilary-schneider-set-to-join-ipo-bound-lifelock/ to http://allthingsd.com/20120910/in-the-vault-former-yahoo-exec-hilary-schneider-set-to-join-ipo-bound-lifelock
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605061220/http://searchconcepts.com/2009/08/13/symantec-partners-with-lifelock-to-unite-40m-in-funding/ to http://searchconcepts.com/2009/08/13/symantec-partners-with-lifelock-to-unite-40m-in-funding

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Lifelock and Equifax Partnership
Lifelock and Equifax entered in to a partnership in December 2015 where Equifax provides data services to Lifelock including Credit Monitoring Service provided by Equifax. Lifelock announced that the Equifax data breach drove a large increase in customers since announcement of that data breach. Since Lifelock uses Equifax for data services, these new members coming as a result of the Equifax breach are being placed directly back in to Equifax.

What do they actually do?
I keep receiving ads from Norton, encouraging me to sign up for this service. But they are not very specific about what the service actually entails. What do customers actually get from them? So I came to this article, which also does not say. "Identity theft protection", sure, but what does that actually mean? How do they purport to defend their customers?

This seems like an obvious question to ask, perhaps the first question about a company or business unit -- what do they do? It is surprising to me that the article doesn't even attempt to answer it. ACW (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

LifeLock → NortonLifeLock – This article is about a company whose name changed in 2022, per this article and the corporate site. The product LifeLock could possibly warrant its own page, too. The parent company Gen Digital should be considered. A possible understanding is that NortonLifelock renamed to Gen Digital after they acquired Avira, but the subsidiary continues with the former name. Chumpih t 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.   The Night Watch     (talk)   15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Chumpih. I don't edit Wikipedia often, but saw the template on this page while reading and thought I'd offer my two cents, for what it's worth (and since nobody has participated in the discussion yet). It appears NortonLifeLock did rename to Gen Digital (or Gen, or Gen Digital Inc., depending on where you look), and that LifeLock continues to operate as a identity protection product. I think the title change would be confusing, and technically incorrect? Hope that is helpful! 168.100.247.2 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the comment. As far as I can see, the article currently is about the company, not the product.  Would the following make sense?
 * Contents of the current LifeLock page gets copy-and-pasted into a page on NortonLifeLock company (a subsidiary of Gen Digital)
 * New stub article describing LifeLock product goes into the page called LifeLock.
 * Perhaps qualify the titles like LifeLock (software) and NortonLifeLock (company) ?
 * Or perhaps better just leave it alone?
 * Further suggestions welcomed!  Chumpih  t 05:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response! I agree the page name should become Lifelock (software), and that there needs to be some migration of information. Gen Digital is already lengthy, and protected - so perhaps this existing page is moved to a new "LifeLock (software)" page with all info intact, and then we can review what needs to be kept and transferred? Some appears to be outdated, too - for example, it appears LifeLock is only included with one specific version of the Norton 360 subscription, not as the article currently describes.
 * Also, to clarify (because this confused me, too, I read multiple news articles before understanding) NortonLifeLock is not a subsidiary of Gen Digital - Gen Digital is a rebranding of the existing company as a result of the NortonLifeLock/Avast merger. The company's official name is 'Gen' or 'Gen Digital Inc.', so I'm also a bit confused why the Wiki article is 'Gen Digital' (should it not match something like the Apple Inc. page?). Still trying to learn more about naming policies, so there may be something obvious I am missing there. 168.100.247.2 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.