LifeLock is a near-worthless firm: LifeLock signs are indeed everywhere, and yet your story proves that the company has engaged [in] deceptive advertising and more. LifeLock is truly evidence that suckers are everywhere in this land ("Cracking LifeLock," Ray Stern, May 13).
Thanks for the fact-laden, insightful look at this near-worthless Valley firm. Though it claims to have many satisfied customers — and I'm sure it does, because people are stupid — it really can't protect anybody from identity theft, as it claims.
Obviously! The stuff you dug up about its founder's identity being compromised so many times was priceless.
Too bad a going concern that employs so many in the Valley in this bad economy is based on such bullshit.
Mel Nelson, Phoenix
People are better off without LifeLock: People are willing to give away $10 every month so that you can have someone to call on the phone. The Federal Trade Commission has decided that the claims that LifeLock was making were deceptive. Yet people were — and obviously continue to be — deceived.
Giving their $120 a year and personal information to LifeLock has made them more likely to be victims of identity theft because the company has been storing the personal information, including Social Security numbers, in a non-secure database.
You would be much better off putting your money in a savings account to use in the case some less-well-funded fraudster is able to gain access to personal information.
Bob Gleder, Phoenix
Made a fool out of LifeLock CEO: Guess so! Guess LifeLock can protect my identity just as well as it did company CEO Todd Davis'. Ha, which was not at all!
You made a fool out of him and his company and rightly portrayed its customers as clueless sheep.
James Page, Phoenix
Speaking of sheep: New Times, same old empty story! Reading this article is like stepping into a time machine. It's Groundhog Day again.
[The story is] disturbing on many levels, but I don't have the time or the desire to go into each and every one. I do, however, want to note that this seven-page rant filled with old news, peppered with false information, and carrying more than a smidgen of twisted half-truths has the effect of trivializing the devastating effects of identity theft.
It's a biased, mean-spirited personal attack that is as insulting to victims and as it is to educated consumers. I should know because I am both of these things.
Denise Richardson, address withheld
A view from the inside: It's about time someone did a story on LifeLock. The company was founded on deception. I worked on the inside at the top.
There are many in LifeLock who have that drink-the-Kool-Aid mentality — they see Todd Davis as a 21st-century Jim Jones. They will do anything and say anything to protect the LifeLock brand.
There were many employees who wouldn't use LifeLock's services — and they were free to us — because we knew the truth. We knew the issues with the software, hardware, and security procedures that were essentially a pile of warm crap, yet supposed to protect people's identities.
The masses have gotten so lazy and stupid that they don't realize that what LifeLock offers they could do themselves. It's not a hard process.
From the inside, many employees didn't believe in the product, and the advertising was a shock to those of us who actually worked on the systems that were supposed to protect people. And people's real-time information was shown to employees not bonded or who could barely be trusted.
Many of us complained, yet nothing was done. All [management] cared about was the intake of cash.
I can tell you this: When you're looking for a job after working for LifeLock, many Valley employers have reservations about hiring you. Thanks, Todd Davis.
Also, I liked the "gang-raped" comment. It's true. Lifelock does this to the sheep foolish enough to pay for this service. Money-hungry investors internally laugh at all the dummies paying for this service.
Hoping New Times sticks around: I really appreciated this report. Too many people buy into BS, and companies get away with it.
I hope print media like this stays around. I'm young, and I'm afraid that we're losing this aspect for the future. You guys adhere to a standard that a 30-minute TV news program or Web site blurb can't live up to.
Weighing in from Costa Rica: You wrote (in "Hopeless," Michael Lacey, May 6), "The new law, sponsored by former sheriff's deputy and current state Senator Russell Pearce, is, as a matter of fact, part of a national attack on Latino immigrants coordinated by FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform."
You conveniently left out the word "illegal" when speaking of "immigrants." Now why would an articulate man like you do this? Would the inclusion of that one vital word negate your premise?
Why, yes it would.
Mark M. Kahle, Uvita de Osa, Costa Rica
Why so angry, Joe?: Screw illegals! That means go home and die, or something, but get the hell out of my country!
If we'd shoot a few of the scum as they crossed, maybe — just maybe — they would stop and think.
God bless Sheriff Joe. He sweeps up this greasy scum and deports the mess back to its Third World shit-hole.
Joe January, La Puente, California
Pretty sure David doesn't see the irony here: This is not a civil rights issue. The brave Americans who just happened to be black and fought for their constitutional rights were demanding the inherent guarantees afforded them by the Constitution of the United States.
Nobody is trying to subvert Mexican heritage or the explicit right of a foreign national to make a better life in this country. However, our society is governed by laws that ensure our personal liberty, freedom, and protection.
There are also criminal elements that have ties to organized crime and that are becoming more organized and blatantly disrespectful of U.S. and Arizona laws.
David Smith, Phoenix