[__jal]

I'd phrase this more as, "I was impersonated by someone, and a third-party compounded the problem by lying about it to others. Now, to avoid that problem, I pay protection money to that third-party and waste my time jumping through their hoops."

I do the same thing, BTW, because the alternative is worse. But it is a protection racket offered by the very people causing the problem.

[mcshicks]

I think that pretty much is exactly how I felt about it at the time. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that this "remedy" was actually a requirement imposed (at least in California) on the credit agencies by the government, and it wasn't always that way. So for several years instead of this, I would have to actually go check (all three) credit agencies getting my "free" report (since I was an identity theft victim). Of course I still had to ask for it, they didn't just send it to me. So yes it was the least bad alternative. If a large enough people actually signed up for this it would actually destroy the credit agencies business model, because instead of working by default, they would be broken often enough that people would do other, more reliable solutions. I think they may already be happening in some cases. For instance when my son moved into his first apartment, I had to put my name on the lease. I told them my credit was locked and they said they don't use the credit agencies, they had some other check they did. So yeah, no love for credit reporting agencies from me..