Talk:LifeLock

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)

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)

XXX XX XXXX

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

Whereas this, XXX XX XXXX, 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 >.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ 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 >.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ 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,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ 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)

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 [1] and [2]. David (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)