We are going to have to learn to -- effectively -- use compartmentalization, ourselves. (Us technophiles, certainly, but also the "greater masses".) - Separat

We are going to have to learn to -- effectively -- use compartmentalization, ourselves. (Us technophiles, certainly, but also the "greater masses".) - Separate, low-balance checking or similar bank account for "routine payments". Larger balances held in other accounts that cannot be accessed / drawn from through normal channels. - Separate contact address(es) for distinct and more public interfaces. E.g. I and some friends already have P.O. boxes for this purpose. - There are other instances/examples, but this is enough while keeping this comment brief. AND HERE IS AN IMPORTANT POINT: Companies that won't let us do this, or even just make it hard, will become anathema to our own best interests. THERE ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS I don't want all my services and access consolidated under a single user ID and password or other authentication. Services that push towards "one true name" and "all services lumped together", are -- from this security perspective -- not in my best interest. I learned years ago about the value of compartmentalization. It seems that many companies have yet to learn that this is a legitimate concern and feature for their customers. In the age of electronic recordkeeping and processing, it really is a minimal burden upon a business to support more than one account per customer. Customers have legitimate reasons for doing this. Get over it, and give them what they want and need.