You're basically giving yourself year-round access to your report to see if anything strange is happening rather than having to wait an entire year if you order all three at the same time.

It's certainly wrong to be only selling protection for a problem you helped create without also working actively to solve that problem.

It's a big loophole. If a company doesn't know who took (the information) or why, they don't have to tell you about it.

They're driving toward such a weak standard, [legislation] may get stuck. If it's that weak, it should get stuck.

These bad practices start with the high-rate cards and then they migrate to the cards that everyone else holds and then they become very intense in the marketplace.

Fraud alerts don't stop creditors from getting the credit record or credit score. The only type of fraud alert available to consumers before they become victims of identity theft only lasts 90 days, and it doesn't even require the creditor to contact the consumer.

If the company has to tell you every time your information is invaded, they are going to want to spend more money on preventing the problem in the first place.

There are more and more of these breaches, because information is money. The more computerized we are the more true that is. It?s not that hard to turn a piece of information into cash, by opening a fake cell phone account or a fake credit card account.

A security freeze is the strongest form of identity theft prevention for consumers. Only the security freeze gives the consumer the tool to put a stop to the opening of a new fraudulent account.