This was rumored for a little while: http://www.investopedia.com/news/symantec-among-potential-bi...

It is really unfortunate folks feel like they have to pay for these services.

This is a rich person service. Don't feel bad for them. What they're buying is someone else to watch their credit so they can go do whatever they want. The other customers are corporations that get hacked and then have to pay for credit monitoring.

Yep, in a sense, buying lifelock is really a "long" position on future data breaches. The money comes from companies buying 100k+ "seats" after they lose a bunch of pii.

Which is interesting right? "security" company essentially betting that security measures won't work.

I suppose they're at least in a good position to have some insight on that.

Betting that security won't work is called defense in depth. Security people are paid to be paranoid, so if one level fails you hopefully have another. It's like keeping a gun by your bed, even though you feel confident in your lock.

I see your point but I think a more accurate analogy would be a safety company buying shares in hospitals.

This is not so much defense in depth as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Funded by a company that makes fences.

I think this supports your point of view, but it's kind of a 2.3bn dollar statement about how well fences are working out for people.

I've known people that were not rich by any means but felt they had to pay for this.

Poor people can't afford this service.

I didn't say poor, I said not rich. Unless you're going to claim anyone who can afford an extra $10 a month is rich, I don't see what point you're trying to make.