Mark M.

Mark M.

12/04/07 at 10:46 AM

Not yet but I’ve about convinced myself I’m going to do it in the next few months. It’s cheap and if I’m going to pay the money I do for car insurance, having never been in an accident, $10/month to cover me in case of ID theft seems well worth it.

As for my FI offering the service, I would probably not use them for a few reasons:

  1. Perceived conflict of interest and single point of failure.
  2. I don’t like to get too deep into any one FI right now. Being part of an ID theft program at my FI would make it really hard to leave if I wanted to.

Heath S.

Heath S.

12/06/07 at 12:51 PM

Good points Markus…but what is your perceived conflict of interest?

Mark M.

Mark M.

12/06/07 at 09:26 PM

Heath,

My thoughts are that if the bank I had my ID theft protection with, was, through one of their non ID protection departments, in some way responsible for a breach of my information, the way that bank alerts me of that breach might be different than the way a 3rd party service would.

It probably has no salt to it, but like I said, for me it’s a perceived conflict of interest.

Heath S.

Heath S.

12/07/07 at 11:43 AM

I can see your side now, but I actually LIKE a single point of failure. This way if my identity does get stolen I can only point the finger at one entity instead of at my bank, credit card, online services, etc. Back to your point about my bank alerting me different than a ID Theft Insurance company….My bank better let me know about a breach ASAP or they will lose my deposits.

Sponsors

CalTech
Syphr
The Garland Group

Request Information on Becoming a Sponsor


Feedback