[HN Gopher] 10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock ...
___________________________________________________________________
10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock company sued
him - bad idea
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 599 points
Date : 2025-10-27 12:42 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| I am concerned about the public reacting aggressively agaisnt the
| lock company owner amd his family. The guy is definitely a toxic
| bully, but he was indeed violently harrassed by filing a lawsuit,
| however unjust it was.
|
| The correct support for a just cause must have been constructive:
| providing financial support for the defendant, public
| manifestation campaign, professional lobbying, etc
|
| Although this time I agree with the defendant cause, the response
| by the public was as toxic bullying as the plaintiff, only
| stronger.
| tyleo wrote:
| You're getting downvoted which is unfortunate because I think
| you make a worthwhile point.
|
| Emotionally I disagree with you. It feels like a bully is
| getting what a bully deserves. Logically, I think you are right
| though. Crowds just aren't equipped to handle these situations.
| There are cases where the wisdom of the crowd is correct, but
| there are many more where it multiplies harms.
|
| The underlying problem is that it never feels like justice is
| being served. Another comment mentions that there should be
| harsher punishment for false DMCAs. I don't think the "wisdom
| of the crowd" approach is the best way to write those wrongs
| but I lament that modern justice has not been up to the task.
| mikestew wrote:
| I'm going to border closely to blaming the "victim" here, but
| if the lawsuit had been filed without toxic, threatening, man-
| baby social media posts, we wouldn't be hearing about it.
| Harassed because he filed a lawsuit? C'mon, there's a lot more
| to it than that. When one goes swinging their dick around on
| Twitter in an attempt to garner support (from one's equally
| toxic fans, I presume), one will also likely attract equally
| toxic folks who disagree. Talk enough shit, and you'll
| eventually get a punch to the face. Right or wrong, such is the
| world long before social media.
| MBCook wrote:
| That's the internet these days. It's been going on for decades.
| Game developers got death threats over minor changes to video
| games and nothing happened to them. Is it that surprising that
| tactic has continued?
|
| People can make fun of the company all they want. That's fair
| game. They shouldn't be calling the guy's personal phone or
| harassing his family, that's totally over the line.
|
| But nothing happens. The behavior gets a pass so it continues
| to become more common. That passes for debate now.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Phone numbers are public not personal secrets. If you have a
| number someone can call it.
| greedo wrote:
| This all sounds great in the abstract. But reality is different
| due to the power differential. McNally is just one dude (albeit
| with a huge following). Lee is obviously a toxic jerk and his
| attacks and mockery of McNally triggered both McNally
| repeatedly proving the flaws in Proven's technology.
|
| McNally obviously did the correct thing it seeking counsel and
| basically demolishing Proven's case in court. Too bad the SLAPP
| stuff doesn't work with DMCA takedowns.
|
| And everyone else cheering on the sidelines (who isn't a paid
| shill of Proven's like the guy making the "liberal" comment)?
| Well giving Lee's company shit is fine IMHO. Call up the
| publicly available phone numbers, make service requests to
| flood his business etc. Fine with me. You poke the Internet
| bear, you get some claws.
|
| As to the threats? If they actually occurred (which is
| questionable considering the BS Proven has been saying), then
| let the authorities know about them. That's not on McNally at
| all, it's more Lee being a jerk who doesn't know about the
| Streisand Effect, combined with social media companies that
| allow stuff like that to happen. It's also a good idea to not
| expose too much info about your personal life on social media
| that can be linked to your business, opsec ya know?
| mindslight wrote:
| > _the lock company owner amd his family. The guy is definitely
| a toxic bully, but he was indeed violently harrassed by filing
| a lawsuit_
|
| I think you're confusing who filed the lawsuit here. That was
| also the lock company owner as well (Lee/Proven).
|
| While I agree that flash mob harassment from the Internet is a
| terrible dynamic, filing baseless lawsuits has been a
| longstanding way to predictably summon them. So if the table
| stakes of launching or defending these type of aggressive
| attacks have gone from a significant amount of money for
| attorneys, to a significant amount of money for attorneys plus
| public relations and/or having a large audience, does that
| really actually change much? Either way most people simply
| don't file lawsuits, even if they've been actually wronged, due
| to the extreme personal stress.
|
| The straightforward way of diminishing mob justice is to make
| people believe the system provides justice. If we lived in a
| society where McNally would predictably win the lawsuit [0],
| and be predictably compensated for his
| expenses/time/emotionalDistress for being on the receiving end
| of this baseless SLAPP, then there would be much less mob
| outrage to begin with. As it stands, everyone can imagine
| themselves receiving these types of legal shakedown letters,
| but having much less power to push back.
|
| [0] it sounds like this particular suit was slapped down pretty
| hard and "quick" by the standards of the legal system, but
| there are many similar cases that don't go this way
| zamalek wrote:
| Someone seriously needs to be taken to task for filing a false
| DMCA. DMCA is just another term for SLAPP these days. If anyone
| is a lawyer, they could still be despite retracting the case?
| nerdsniper wrote:
| Anti-SLAPP is a great tool to have, but we do need slightly
| stronger ones. It's a tough balance to find - to minimize the
| potential ways to abuse the system for all different kinds of
| entities/people.
|
| YouTube's TOS would be the most critical place to begin in
| terms of evaluating legal options. To file a "DMCA" (not really
| DMCA but YT's proprietary version of it) claimants generally
| have to create an account and agree to the TOS. So it may bind
| both parties (the YTer and the abusive DMCA claimant). That
| might limit legal options for anti-SLAPP, tortious
| interference, etc.
|
| But without either significant legal expertise or someone
| finding some particularly relevant case law, it seems like a
| nuanced enough domain that no one's lay "legal" opinion would
| be particularly illuminating.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| As the recipient of a SLAPP lawsuit (~decade ago) for truth I
| published online, the biggest problem with Anti-SLAPP
| statutes is that laypeople (particularly poorer ones) have
| limited access to attorney representation... the judicial
| system isn't accessible/friendly to the _pro se_ litigant.
|
| So even if the case is clearly being used to strategicly
| silence you, it'll probably _still work (from plaintiff 's
| POV)_. Same for DMCA.
| jcranmer wrote:
| With a strong Anti-SLAPP statute, the person who files the
| lawsuit is on the hook for the defendant's legal fees,
| which would (in theory) let the defendant hire an attorney
| on contigency fees.
|
| Of course, one of the other issues is there's no federal
| Anti-SLAPP statute, and circuits are split as to whether or
| not state Anti-SLAPP applies to federal lawsuits, so if
| someone can diversity jurisdiction you into a federal SLAPP
| lawsuit, you're kind of stuck.
| pcaharrier wrote:
| "if someone can diversity jurisdiction you into a federal
| SLAPP lawsuit"
|
| Sounds like a CivPro hypothetical exam question that
| would give law students nightmares.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| My pitch for an improved system is to give defendants the
| opportunity to file a lawyer-less motion for summary
| dismissal, which is 1) geared towards being filled out by a
| layperson and 2) doesn't disqualify you from a subsequent
| filing for summary dismissal once you get a lawyer.
| Basically, an initial "this is a stupid lawsuit, here's why"
| type deal.
|
| And then fine plaintiffs (and pay the defendants) that lose a
| summary dismissal, because if your case can be thrown out
| before trial, it was a shit case that should have never been
| filed in the first place.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| The real problem with DMCA is that in theory it's under penalty
| of perjury, but in practice it's completely ignored. What is
| really needs is statutory damages for bogus takedown requests.
| o11c wrote:
| Part of the problem with the DMCA is that the "perjury"
| clause only applies to "claiming that some IP exists", not
| "claiming that this violates the IP".
| mindcrime wrote:
| It's probably a good thing for Proven that they didn't get into
| this dispute the LockPickingLawyer instead. He'd wind up owning
| their company in the counter-suit...
| adolph wrote:
| That'd be an interesting channel, the "LockMakingLawyer" where
| the lock is highly lawsuit resistant, "Press the NDA button to
| always be informed when the next video comes out"
| mothballed wrote:
| This guy shims a $100+ lock in 10 seconds with a liquid death
| can, all without speaking in the video, just replays and then
| destroyed their claims and GTFO. Absolutely masterful.
| viggity wrote:
| These kinds of results seem all too common. Like, why? Are
| companies just too used to using their general business attorneys
| for it, and those attorneys are just ignorant? Hungry for extra
| billable hours?
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| Even if they know they would lose in court, lawsuits are
| expensive enough that threatening to sue or filing a lawsuit is
| often enough to get people without deep pockets to do whatever
| you want.
|
| I don't know if that was the reasoning in this case though,
| considering that they didn't drop the lawsuit once it was clear
| that the youtuber wasn't going to give in to their demands.
| topspin wrote:
| > Like, why?
|
| The answer, as succinctly as possible: cognitive dissonance.
|
| This is exhibited in every human endeavor, but it's
| particularly acute, or at least more apparent to simple
| analysis, in business. In business, anything that diminishes
| the perception of value is a threat to earnings. Business
| people don't tolerate the existence of such perceptions _in
| their minds._ They readily adopt whatever mental state is
| necessary to deny realities that reveal a lack of value in
| whatever work product they sell.
|
| In this case, someone demonstrated a weakness in a lock design.
| In the minds of the business people behind the product, this is
| impossible. Their locks are awesome. Best locks in the world!
| Therefore, the only conceivable possibility permitted, in their
| minds, is fraud or some other actionable offense that can be
| feasibly pursued in court.
|
| The role of lawyers in this is a symptom, not a cause. Lawyers
| are paid to exhibit the necessary cognitive dissonance their
| clients require. Whatever aberrations or iniquities arise from
| this are simply denied by yet more cognitive dissonance.
| walterbell wrote:
| _> Lawyers are paid to exhibit the necessary cognitive
| dissonance their clients require._
|
| Thanks for answering this FAQ.
| dwattttt wrote:
| While IANAL: even people who have done wrong deserve to be
| treated fairly. "Cognitive dissonance" has nothing to do with
| representing someone.
|
| Businesses don't have to delude themselves to succeed either.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Back in 2007, I published the first YouTube bypass of the Master
| Lock #175 (very common 4-digit code lock), using a paperclip.
|
| After the video reached 1.5M views (over a couple years), the
| video was eventually demonetized (no official reason given). I
| suspect there was a similarly-frivolous DMCA / claim, but at that
| point in my life I didn't have any money (was worth _negative_ )
| so I just accepted YouTube's ruling.
|
| Eventually shut down the account, not wanting to help thieves
| bypass one of the most-common utility locks around -- but
| definitely am in a position now where I understand that videos
| like mine and McNally's force manufacturers to actually improve
| their locks' securities/mechanisms.
|
| It is lovely now to see that the tolerances on the #175 have been
| tightened enough that a paperclip no longer defeats the lock (at
| least non-destructively); but thin high-tensile picks still do
| the trick (of bypassing the lock) via the exact same mechanism.
|
| Locks keep honest people honest, but to claim Master's products
| _high security_ is inherently dishonest (e.g. in their
| advertising). Thievery is about ease of opportunity; if I were
| stealing from a jobsite with multiple lockboxes, the ones with
| Master locks would be attacked first (particularly wafer
| cylinders).
| mothballed wrote:
| Actual thieves don't give a shit to learn lock picking, they
| can use a fine toothed sawzall or oxy-acetylene torch and
| defeat any lock just as fast without having to youtube the
| particular brand.
| Ekaros wrote:
| It is actually surprising just how little brute force many
| semi-decent padlocks can handle. A decent mallet and some
| force concentrator and I think good amount of them will fail.
| ortusdux wrote:
| I just need to be able to show the insurance company a
| police report and obvious tampering. On video, someone
| using an aluminum shim looks the same as someone using a
| key, and any evidence would require some decent forensics.
| Same goes for skilled lockpicking and bump-keying. Ideally,
| the weakest link should be the door, the hinges, the
| shackle, etc.
| jorvi wrote:
| Padlocks can be snapped open by angling two wrenches:
| https://youtu.be/dBSSA5ot0tA
|
| This even works with bigger padlocks, you just need two
| really big wrenches and a buddy to help you.
| Phui3ferubus wrote:
| There are diminishing returns. Just look at bike locks.
| Anything higher than trash tier, and the issue is finding a
| dedicated bike stand, since anything else will get
| destroyed by the grinder faster than the lock.
| butlike wrote:
| bike theft should be classified as a felony akin to grand
| theft auto
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| Instead of declaring all bike thieves felons and
| imprisoning the 1% of them we manage to catch, we should
| spend our money on sting operations that catch the 50 or
| so individuals in each city that steal 80% of the bikes,
| and reserve the felony treatment for repeat offenders.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yea, be rather dumb for someone to grab their red Huffy
| at the park and get a felony charge because they picked
| up a look alike bike.
| acdha wrote:
| I like the bait bike operations some police departments
| do to catch the shops buying stolen bikes. Addicts steal
| things they can fence and cutting into the business side
| means you don't have to catch nearly as many people,
| although Facebook is determined to fill some of the gaps.
| butlike wrote:
| but then it's obvious the locked thing in question had been
| defiled. To exfiltrate without detection is the real skill
| Johnny555 wrote:
| But usually the thing that's locked up can survive even
| less brute force than the lock -- a storage unit near mine
| was broken into, and the unit owner (who was there with the
| police) said the thieves just pried off the storage unit
| lock, the sheet metal door literally tore and the entire
| locking mechanism came out.
|
| This was an outdoor unit, the thieves came in over the
| fence (the barbed wire on the fence didn't slow them), and
| left the same way. If I had anything valuable, I'd keep it
| in an indoor unit where at least there's a locked door in
| the way.
| lisbbb wrote:
| So the whole Breaking Bad cash hoard on pallets thing is
| not a good idea?
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Barbed wire is security theater. It was invented for
| cattle, and it does a reasonably good job of keeping
| cattle confined. (It doesn't work well for horses because
| horses are even more stupid than cattle and horses
| repeatedly injure themselves on it and the wounds get
| infected.)
|
| Barbed wire doesn't work for humans, especially humans
| who have some familiarity with it.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I assume that means humans with adequate tools. If I
| didn't at least have some wire cutters or a carpet I
| don't know how I would get through it without grievous
| injury. (I further assume we're not talking about the
| _serious_ barbed wire from WWI.)
| everforward wrote:
| I don't think there's much of a point. If the thief came
| prepared with tools and is willing to make a lot of noise,
| there's not a ton that can be done.
|
| Without even exotic tools, what are the odds the door the
| lock is attached to will withstand a crowbar? Or the same
| mallet and force concentrator applied to the
| door/hinges/where the lock attaches?
| mindslight wrote:
| A portable plasma cutter? What is this, Star Trek? Are there
| some extremely-high-power-density battery-operated plasma
| cutters available on Aliexpress that I haven't yet run
| across? Or maybe I should locate my safe far away from my
| stove/dryer receptacles?
| mothballed wrote:
| You're right, I've mixed them up with portable oxy-
| acetylene torch, unless they're just backing up to the lock
| in a pick-up.
| mindslight wrote:
| Damn, I was hoping I was wrong. Going to need some kind
| of energy weapon to use against the coming robot armies.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Depends on how portable.
|
| A while back I was making a point about the border wall
| farce--and found everything I would need to do "portable"
| plasma cutting on said wall on Home Depot's website. Not
| pick it up type portable, but put it in a wagon type
| portable. (Generator, not batteries.)
| mindslight wrote:
| I don't know how anybody can look at those rusty metal
| pylons and not think their natural habitat is at home on
| top of a 40 year old white Toyota pickup with a
| suspension that long ago achieved sainthood. Like if I
| were looking to _attract_ illegal immigrants, those
| pylons would be exactly what I would use. But then again
| isn 't this just the standard fascist pattern? Propose a
| comically self-defeating solution to some problem, and
| build a tribal identity around aggressively denying the
| obvious. It's like the social justice preaching to the
| choir writ large.
| lisbbb wrote:
| A plasma cutter needs a pretty decent supply of compressed
| air
| StickTIGLiIon4 wrote:
| A 5lb bottle of Nitrogen would do the trick.
| StickTIGLiIon4 wrote:
| Like muffler fluid, the battery powered welder has gone
| from a joke to reality recently.
|
| Not a plasma cutter, but same power class, and certainly
| able to heat a padlock shank to melting.
| https://www.dewalt.com/product/0447800880/esab-renegade-
| volt...
| olyjohn wrote:
| But people have been welding with batteries for ages. The
| most primitive welder is a car battery and a couple of
| wire leads. Tons of videos of it on YouTube.
| StickTIGLiIon4 wrote:
| Yeah, fair enough. Two car batteries in series is even
| better. Not easy on the batteries, but it will get the
| jeep out of the bush.
|
| You can also make your own stick electrodes from
| coathanger wire tightly wrapped in paper.
|
| I couldn't tell you how many pairs of sunglasses you
| should parallel to protect yourself...
|
| This rig, on the other hand, is something you could pack
| into just about any plant and fix something with without
| raising any eyebrows. If you have $5,000 to spend, that
| is. Super handy for small jobs in hard to access places.
| StickTIGLiIon4 wrote:
| Hearing about it did ruin the "cordless welder" jokes my
| coworkers used to share.
| harvey9 wrote:
| Reminds me how the Sinclair C5 failed because the
| inventor couldn't source a 15 mile long power lead.
| harvey9 wrote:
| Shouldn't the sunglasses be in series?
| StickTIGLiIon4 wrote:
| Batteries in series, typical stick welding voltage is
| ~27v. You might be able to light up on one battery, but
| you will quickly learn why it's called "stick" welding.
|
| I wouldn't arc weld with any number of pairs of
| sunglasses, that was firmly tongue-in-cheek; but yes you
| are right, stacked glasses would be series.
|
| Also, if you try this, before pulling the battery from
| the non-broken jeep, drive it to the top of a hill so you
| can bump start it later when the battery is too dead to
| turn the engine over.
| mindslight wrote:
| Damn, didn't know that existed but it makes sense with
| how much power lithium ion can deliver.
|
| I'll have to keep my eye out for the Home Depot buy a
| battery and get a free tool deal on those.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| Matt's Off Road Recovery uses one to stick broken Humvee
| steering rods back together about once every four or five
| episodes.
| StickTIGLiIon4 wrote:
| Heh, I'll have to watch for that sale.
|
| 4x12AH batteries, that's gonna be over $1200.
|
| I doubt you could charge them faster than the welder can
| run them down, so you might want three sets and two gang
| chargers if you want production anything like a plug-in
| machine.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| You can pick up a wholly self-contained plasma cutter in
| Lidl or Hofer in their "cool tools week" for about PS100
| these days.
|
| It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to hook that up to a
| biggish inverter and 24V worth of deep cycle batteries on a
| small trolley, maybe a wheelie suitcase.
|
| Always be red-teaming.
| polygot wrote:
| It's much more difficult to tell if someone bypassed the lock
| if they picked it (and relocked it), as opposed to cutting it
| off completely
| vkou wrote:
| Which is relevant when you're defending against Ocean's 11
| or the Mossad, but for the other 99.999% of us, the lock is
| there to keep a bored teenager or a meth junkie out.
|
| Or, more realistically, to convince an insurer that we've
| made a token effort to keep them out.
| burkaman wrote:
| That is a subset of thieves. There are still plenty of
| situations where it is beneficial to have a lock that can't
| be opened in 5 seconds with a paperclip, like a school or gym
| locker room for example. Nobody is bringing a sawzall into
| the gym while it's open.
|
| Similarly, I know the lock on my front door is not going to
| stop anyone who really wants to get inside, but it does stop
| drunk people or bored kids from wandering in because it's
| easy.
| jrnng wrote:
| > Nobody is bringing a sawzall into the gym while it's
| open.
|
| They are bringing in bolt cutters to locker rooms. The
| locker metal loop that the lock threads through is easier
| to cut than the lock. I've first hand seen lockers
| destroyed to remove the lock. Not while the break in is
| happening but it's easy piece the crime scene back together
| to understand their tools.
|
| Manual bolt cutters are almost silent except for the
| "thunk" when it breaks the metal, and there are even
| battery operated bolt cutters that are quick and compact.
| rags2riches wrote:
| > I've first hand seen lockers destroyed to remove the
| lock.
|
| A neighbor secured his expensive bike with a hefty lock
| and chain around a tree in our courtyard. Bad guys
| brought a saw. I still miss that tree.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| I'm convinced there is basically no foolproof way to
| secure a bicycle in public.
|
| I've seen everything from braided steel being cut clean
| to combination bike locks getting picked (by the attacker
| actually figuring out the correct combination, not just
| brute-forcing it apart or wangjangling a paperclip).
|
| They just need to steal 1 good bicycle to more than pay
| off the cost of their equipment. One stolen bicycle could
| feed a family for a week. In some place like the Bay Area
| where $1000 bicycles abound, the economics are just too
| appealing.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| My school had bolt cutter just sitting in the locker
| rooms because kids forgot their combinations.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Yeah as long as we don't have unrealistic expectations from
| our $30 deadbolts and our $5 combo locks it's fine. But
| people sometimes buy the cheap thing and expect it to
| perform as well as a really expensive thing.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I suggest watching LPL then to see how often the
| expensive thing fails just as quickly as the cheap thing.
| Macha wrote:
| > like a school or gym locker room for example
|
| We broke into our own lockers the whole time with metal
| rulers back when I was in school because of forgotten keys
| or just because it was quicker opening them that way than
| actually unlocking and relocking them. (And of course the
| more students did this, the more worn the metal became and
| made it even easier the next time)
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Most people would be absolutely astounded how bold you can
| get with a safety vest and/or a clipboard, and how passive
| most people are to an obvious suspicious situation.
|
| I have used a grinder to take off a bike lock (I owned the
| bike) in broad daylight in Downtown Denver on a main
| street. A local business even allowed me to use their power
| outlets. Not one person questioned me or asked me to see
| proof of ownership. I was fully prepared to have to deal
| with cops or at least a good samaritan, but nope, plenty of
| people watched me do the exact thing a bike thief would do
| and didn't ask any questions.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > Most people would be absolutely astounded how bold you
| can get with a safety vest and/or a clipboard, and how
| passive most people are to an obvious suspicious
| situation.
|
| I don't think they'd be surprised at all.
|
| What the hell am I supposed to do if I see someone
| stealing a bike or whatever? Stop them? Hell no, if they
| have tools then it's a good bet they have weapons. Call
| the cops? They don't care; recently they don't even
| _pretend_ to care.
|
| Pretty much all you can do is say, "knock it off" and
| maybe they stop (they won't).
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| You have to hope a stubborn, but surprisingly fit, 60+
| year old man is nearby to assert himself into the
| situation and tell the thief to bugger off.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I used to rent a storage unit. I lost the key to it, and went
| to the manager. He came back to the unit with a small battery
| powered grinder. Cut the padlock's loop through in a few
| seconds.
|
| Most locks are only good if the attacker doesn't have any
| tools.
| bombcar wrote:
| For surprise of tool used the saw vs safe are the best:
|
| https://youtu.be/2guvwQvElA8
|
| The main thing locks do is make it _noisy_ to get in.
| oniony wrote:
| Unless they have an inductive heater.
| theoreticalmal wrote:
| Powered by what?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Aha, a legitimate use for those things!
|
| Saw the same, except it was bolt cutters.
| RajT88 wrote:
| I bought a giant pair of bolt cutters a while back for a
| use case other than bolt cutting (shark fishing; cut the
| big hook instead of putting your hand near the mouth).
|
| I never caught any big sharks like I thought, but now my
| wife runs a restaurant and occasionally employees just
| don't show up to work and leave things in their lockers.
| Once in a while it's clear it's to be annoying (locking
| supplies in their locker).
|
| Never met a padlock or combination lock I couldn't shear
| through easily. Totally has paid for itself.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Now, for a similar price, you can buy a hydraulic cutter
| powered by a hand pump. They also come with replaceable
| jaws so you dont wreck your cutters when attacking a hard
| lock.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Lothee-Hydraulic-Cutting-Portable-
| Han...
|
| And there are powered models too. The 3-foot snippers are
| long out of date for thieves.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Oh this is about double what I paid. But good to know!
| chipsrafferty wrote:
| To be fair, a lot of people don't have tools.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Entirely depends on what manner of thief we are talking about
| here, what they're going after, how important it is to them,
| and how much they care about the owner knowing the lock was
| tampered with.
|
| This is why I don't like such black-and-white opinions... I
| think the answer is rarely so simple.
| mothballed wrote:
| I think it's largely a class or educational divide. I come
| from a very hick, redneck, working class area. People use
| black-and-white statements and course language with the
| understanding that corner cases will exist anyway. My use
| of this type of language common in more middle America is
| something I find the more silicon valley or tech centered
| HN constantly finds issue with.
|
| It's common in more upper-crust / educated circles to shit
| on people that use more course, black and white language. I
| believe it has more to do with cultural divide than
| misunderstanding that rare/corner cases exist.
|
| In another recent exchange on HN, I was damned for using
| the word 'never.' They didn't even explain why, just said
| they wouldn't believe people that used it. I was using it
| in the redneck sense "you'll never get that girl" as in
| it's extremely unlikely to the point it's hardly worth even
| considering, rather than the nerded out version that it
| means the chance is literally precisely 0.
| otterley wrote:
| .
| mothballed wrote:
| no, and I don't see how you could possibly deduce that
| from my statement
| otterley wrote:
| .
| mothballed wrote:
| I'm saying that some people don't understand that some
| cultural uses of black-and-white English indicate
| practical precision rather than absolute theoretical
| precision.
| nxor wrote:
| It's not cultural.
| Agingcoder wrote:
| FWIW I come from a non working class background ( but am
| not American ). My friends and I routinely debate in such
| a manner, and don't see any problem with this. If
| confronted with a stranger we might be a bit more
| cautious ( basically we'll state the rules of the
| conversation) but that's about it. If needed, we'll
| sometimes be a bit more accurate.
|
| I understand your statements as you mean them - I default
| to giving you the benefit of the doubt, and automatically
| assume that black and white statements are shortcuts.
| Only, and only if you seem to not understand nuance then
| I will adjust my stance, but I usually assume you do!
| rincebrain wrote:
| I think the problem can be described as assuming good
| faith in the argument - that is, that you're talking with
| someone who you are presuming is attempting to
| communicate, not just "win" the conversation.
|
| The difference becomes clear very quickly - if there's a
| genuine misunderstanding, someone will clarify and move
| on; if someone is trying to rules lawyer the
| conversation, it won't.
| nxor wrote:
| Exaggeration is not 'hick, redneck, working class.'
| MisterTea wrote:
| A battery powered angle grinder with a zip wheel is the best
| lock picking tool out there. Hell, a cordless Dremel with a
| zip wheel might do it.
| lisbbb wrote:
| Yes. I once saw a guy open a bike U-lock using a car scissor
| jack and he was done in about 20 seconds and the bike was
| gone. Nowadays there are very good battery powered grinders
| that can take a cutoff wheel and no padlock is going to
| resist that.
| amluto wrote:
| But there are a handful of new U-locks that are quite
| difficult to cut using angle grinders.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| most thieves don't even go that far. they find stuff that
| isn't locked or they kick in the door.
| slenk wrote:
| No one is doing that in a nice residential neighborhood
| zie wrote:
| That's when people can get away with it in broad daylight
| :) Because everyone thinks like you.
| mk89 wrote:
| It depends on where you live. I guess it's not uncommon to
| hear about someone entering a building "as the delivery guy"
| just to try to pick a lock and see which one opens.
|
| If you make too much noise people will get suspicious and
| might call the police.
| umvi wrote:
| Actual thieves are most interested in low effort/fast methods
| of bypassing locks. Master single pin picking to LPL's level
| and the thief might as well just turn locksmithing into a
| career instead of stealing. Low effort attacks like shimming,
| raking, bumping though might be worth a thief's time to
| learn.
| dekhn wrote:
| Issues with master locks are hardly new- back in the 1980s, I
| downloaded a file from a BBS explaining how to open a combo
| lock (basically by pulling on the shackle while turning, and a
| few other tricks.
|
| It's still online:
| https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/anarchy_and_privacy_contro...
| c420 wrote:
| https://youtu.be/qL_MeobAp5s?t=1487
|
| For those interested in the actual case, here's some deeper
| coverage of this bruhaha including how Lee may have perjured
| himself during deposition.
| hinkley wrote:
| That guy sure isn't in a hurry to get anywhere. Good one to
| watch at 1.25x speed.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| Lock-makers should start including RFID and a software key
| checking mechanism, then sharing the key would be illegal
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > sharing the key would be illegal
|
| How so? And what region are you referring to? There are many
| countries in the world with vastly different laws.
| dcan wrote:
| 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
| butlike wrote:
| plz stop! my hddvds...
| foofoo12 wrote:
| That's an illegal number mate. Straight to the slammer!
|
| (for those missing out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_en
| cryption_key_controvers...)
| nomel wrote:
| Could you make access illegal using the DMCA, by putting some
| copyrighted content inside, with the physical key also being
| the license key?
| butlike wrote:
| I don't really "get" locks. If you want something to be closed
| forever, seal it shut. If it should be opened and closed, leave
| a hinge. If it should only be open and closed by a select few,
| leave it in a trusted environment
|
| Don't you live in a good neighborhood?
| avhon1 wrote:
| I've lived in a fair few places, but I've never lived in a
| place where an unlocked bicycle wouldn't be stolen. I'll keep
| using locks, thank you very much.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I think they were probably making a joke about software
| security.
| hereme888 wrote:
| A trusted environment, even in a "good neighborhood",
| requires a lock at least to the front door of your house, or
| gate, or w/e.
|
| But where will you park your car when you go to work? You
| have to lock it.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > A trusted environment, even in a "good neighborhood",
| requires a lock at least to the front door of your house,
| or gate, or w/e.
|
| I don't think that's a trusted environment or "good
| neighborhood". But then I basically use "can leave front
| door unlocked with zero worries" as the threshold for
| "trusted environment".
|
| But those environments and neighborhoods definitively
| exists today across the world, although they're probably
| becoming less and less common.
| lexszero_ wrote:
| Here in Finland mechanical locks with electronic keying are
| pretty common in some places. Some of them like iLOQ or Abloy
| eCLIQ are actually pretty clever: electrical bits of the lock
| are powered from mechanical action of inserting and turning the
| key, so you don't have to worry about batteries. In theory,
| they promise significant cost savings in scenarios like rental
| apartment buildings where tenants move in and out, need access
| to common areas, lose keys, etc, without compromising security
| or having to replace or recode locks - they just give you a
| generic key, click some buttons in the admin panel, and your
| key could be provisioned accordingly once you first enter the
| building and interact with one of the "smarter" locks that are
| externally powered and networked to the mothership.
|
| In practice, in addition to the usual bugs you would expect
| from a software-based system managed and maintained by a
| plethora of organizations and contractors, they tend to become
| very annoying as parts wear out, so you have to fiddle with the
| key reinserting it repeatedly trying to find just the right
| angle so it will make a good contact to be recognized by the
| lock (for example the iLOQ system by my landlord communicates
| over a thin contact strip molded into the key opposite of the
| cutting and separated from the rest of the key with a thin
| layer of plastic).
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Sounds about right for Abloy. They own Yale and their app-
| based alarm is subcontracted dogshit (by
| https://mobilepeople.dk) that didn't get updated for years on
| end, logs you out constantly, has less functionally than a
| 90s keypad model and even the hub thing sometimes just falls
| over and needs a power cycle, etc etc etc. Presumably they
| are entirely unable to handle any of it in house and are at
| the mercy of the contractor to fix anything.
| hinata08 wrote:
| The internet : _sees thoughts challenging facts_
|
| Someone : "Sucks to see how many people take everything they see
| online for face value," one Proven employee wrote. "Sounds like a
| bunch of liberals lol."
|
| The company : Proven also had its lawyers file "multiple" DMCA
| takedown notices against the McNally video, claiming that its use
| of Proven's promo video was copyright infringement.
|
| When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol"
| ?
|
| Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal.
| mothballed wrote:
| >Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal.
|
| To be fair that's not what we have in USA. For instance, a
| nurse who never even signed a private privacy agreement with
| anyone (unusual, but could happen) could violate HIPAA if they
| factually tell a patient's spouse the patient is being treated
| for AIDS and they ought to watch out.
| alwa wrote:
| Yes, they could and most definitely would be. The case you
| describe is one of the reasons it's that way.
|
| For what exactly would this fly-by-night nurse be telling me
| to "watch out," in relation to my partner who's living with
| and being treated for HIV?
|
| One hopes this nurse, being medically trained and apparently
| working with vulnerable populations, understands the efficacy
| of the modern HIV therapies the patient is receiving. That,
| when managed, HIV is not transmissible by conventional
| marital means [0]; and that, until recently at least [also
| 0], concerted public health efforts have meant that most
| anyone who seeks medical attention ends up on those modern
| therapies.
|
| That said, I hope said nurse would catch me in a charitable
| mood rather than a litigious one.
|
| [0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-
| approach/undetecta...
| mothballed wrote:
| This is an entirely different argument than the fact at
| hand, which is making the factual statement is illegal.
|
| You're just explaining why stating the fact should be
| illegal.
|
| >[0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-
| approach/undetecta...
|
| I said AIDS, not HIV. I am no AIDS expert but I would be
| shocked if a large portion of people AIDS had no detectable
| viral load, while people with HIV commonly do not have
| detectable one. Wouldn't people with no detectable viral
| load generally not being exhibiting AIDS?
| alwa wrote:
| In that case--and in re-reading the comment you were
| responding to--I think I'm agreeing with you and that I
| should have read more carefully before getting my dander
| up :)
|
| It sounds like we're agreeing that you've given a good
| example of why it both is and should be that way.
|
| And that, in US jurisprudence anyway, speech tends to be
| allowed unless there's a broader social interest that's
| served by protecting the specific categories of facts in
| question.
|
| With the slight caveat that I'm not sure that "should
| watch out" is a fact, it sounds like an opinion to me
| (and one that's potentially unsupported by the facts). In
| fact, don't people governed by HIPAA still have a duty to
| report situations of actual or likely physical harm--for
| example if a minor presents with signs consistent with
| abuse [0]? Or even, in your example, if the provider
| became aware that the HIV-positive patient, out of malice
| or negligence, were declining treatment, exhibiting
| substantial viral load, and asserting that they intended
| to continue with behaviors that put the partner at risk?
|
| [0] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-
| professionals/faq/2098/if-doct...
| nradov wrote:
| How could that happen exactly? In what circumstances could a
| nurse end up working for (or even volunteering for) a HIPAA
| covered entity without signing a privacy agreement?
| skopje wrote:
| They're all a tough guys act. It's the type. Many American men
| love playing soldiers. What is Liquid Death? It's water LOL.
| See?
| viridian wrote:
| FWIW in my experience is less the monster energy / black
| rifle coffee audience, it's actually the red bull / white
| claw audience.
|
| It still feels wrong to me, but that's how it is.
| yojo wrote:
| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."[0]
|
| 0: https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252
| zahlman wrote:
| > When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals
| lol" ?
|
| It didn't. That's one employee of the company, who has a clear
| bias in the matter, being ridiculous. It has nothing to do with
| liberal ideology, nor critique of liberal ideology, nor
| whatever sort of person that employee thinks should be
| considered a "liberal", nor _their_ ideology. It 's only the
| employee who even suggests that, and probably not even
| seriously.
| jwr wrote:
| If you don't know him already, I highly recommend videos by
| LockPickingLawyer -- he routinely destroys bogus claims of
| various companies within seconds. It's quite entertaining to see
| how little security you actually get from most locks.
|
| I wonder if anybody tried suing him...
| jasoncartwright wrote:
| LPL is superb. He inspired me to get a lock pick kit and a few
| simple padlocks - a cheap and fun hobby during COVID lockdowns.
| diego898 wrote:
| Thinking of doing the same! Which kit did you order? I see a
| FNG, FNG+ Bundle, and "Learn lockpicking bundle". 3rd one
| seems the most likely candidate. Any tips you can share?
| Thanks!
| yoz-y wrote:
| I've got a German practice lock and boy was that a hard
| wake up call. That thing was so hard to pick that I gave
| up. (The keyhole is really slim)
|
| My bad though, LPL did warn about this.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I did the same (also during COVID, after doing it for a bit
| in my youth). I haven't tried Covert Instruments gear, I
| bought some other pack from China, but whatever pack you
| can find with the basics (and maybe some variety so you can
| try different techniques) plus a training padlock so you
| can see what's going on inside, and it'll be a walk in the
| park.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Start with a cheap kit from e.g. Amazon which includes a
| couple of perspex locks so you can see what you're doing.
| Get a real set of picks for real money once you graduate
| from that.
| jasoncartwright wrote:
| I got a PS50 pick set from https://x.com/martin__newton
|
| https://imgur.com/a/sbXoBCK
| jamie_ca wrote:
| I got the Learn Lockpicking bundle a few years back, it's a
| solid customizable lock - six slots, a few different pin
| styles, and the springs to make it work. I got practiced
| enough to get a 3-pin opened, but I'm definitely out of
| practice now.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Ditto. I was even able to put my lock picking skills to use
| one fine summer day when the dog park was locked due to "rain
| from yesterday" even though the grass and everything was
| clearly fine. We had a lovely time running around as a
| family, along with a couple other families, for about an hour
| before the groundskeeper came and shooed us away.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| When we moved last time, our "financials" filing cabinet
| accidentally got locked (one of the ones with button lock)
| and I wound up having to pick it. The ability, even at a
| basic level, comes in handy more often then you would
| expect.
| bigiain wrote:
| Picking filing cabinet locks is part of the genesis of
| modern hacker ethos. Feynman would be proud.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| At a previous company, a power outage knocked out our
| router, which knocked out the card access system, which
| locked us out of the server room where the router was.
| Good news, there was a physical key bypass. Bad news,
| nobody knew where said key was. Lucky for us, I could pop
| out to my car, grab my picks, and then got the thing open
| in a couple of minutes.
|
| Definitely the most above-the-board use those picks ever
| got (Though obtaining access to my university dorm's AC
| controls definitely made me more popular).
| sambeau wrote:
| Thritto.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I picked up and started practicing with Lishi lock tools, and
| I cannot recommend them enough. Pocket Tool Warehouse out of
| Texas has been good in my experience for sourcing them, no
| affiliation. Like an automatic transmission for lock picking.
|
| https://www.classiclishi.com/about/lishi-history
|
| https://www.originallishi.com/what-are-lishi-tools
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| LPL owns Covert Instruments, who employs McNally, the YouTuber
| who got sued in this case. Probably not a coincidence that
| Covert Instruments _wasn 't_ named in the lawsuit.
| jonhohle wrote:
| I wonder if McNally knows a lawyer familiar with lock picking
| ;-)
| slenk wrote:
| Oh sweet never knew there was a connection between LPL and
| McNally - I just notice they always cut their shims from cans
| the same way
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| There aren't that many ways to cut a shim from a can that
| work and don't take excessive effort. It's a rounded hook
| shape, with a handle piece trimmed so you don't cut
| yourself.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Probably not a coincidence that Covert Instruments wasn't
| named in the lawsuit
|
| What's the non-coincidence?
| sgerenser wrote:
| That they avoided naming the lawyer or the lawyer's company
| in their bogus lawsuit and instead only named the non-
| lawyer.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| He can still defend is employee, right?
| Kye wrote:
| Opening a padlock by hitting it with another padlock has to be
| one of my favorite bits.
| danudey wrote:
| "This is a Master Lock XYZ. It can be opened with a Master
| Lock XYZ."
| Y_Y wrote:
| Same solid principle as homeopathy
| tejtm wrote:
| this is HN; its a monad.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| If a lock takes more than 20 seconds to break it's basically
| Fort Knox
| azinman2 wrote:
| Are there any that are truly secure?
| lawn wrote:
| Any lock can be forced through given the right tools and
| enough time.
|
| You need to be more specific with what "truly secure"
| means.
| __loam wrote:
| There's a few that are pretty good but at a certain point
| you can just grind off the shackle or blow the door off its
| hinges.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| It's similar to the idea that the only truly secure
| computer is sixty feet underground, encased in concrete,
| turned off, and ground into dust.
| __loam wrote:
| I can't get hacked if I live a self sufficient hermitic
| lifestyle in an off the grid cabin with no electric
| devices.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| All the digital forensics experts I know suggest the
| bottom of the ocean FYI.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Secure against what? You might be surprised at what a wench
| and a truck can pull / destroy. If that fails, there are
| shotguns and also explosives, jackhammers and the like.
|
| There are always assumptions built into lock design. A
| simple lock is very secure if a fence is jumpable, most
| people will jump the fence rather than mess with a lock.
|
| Even a complex lock will never be secure for national
| secrets (like nuclear missiles), you need to just assign
| guards. Locks exist but are basically a formality (IIRC,
| many tanks and airplanes are left unlocked because all the
| security posture is with the military and the lock itself
| is too much of a hassle for logistics).
|
| ------
|
| Fort Knox itself was designed to be safe from Nazi
| invasion. If the Nazis invaded New York City, they won't
| find any of the governments gold. The 'lock' in this case
| is the miles and miles of geography the Nazis would have to
| navigate before reaching Fort Knox.
| pfdietz wrote:
| "In 1933, the U.S. suspended gold convertibility and gold
| exports. In the following year, the U.S. dollar was
| devalued when the gold price was fixed at $35 per troy
| ounce. After the U.S. dollar devaluation, so much gold
| began to flow into the United States that the country's
| gold reserves quadrupled within eight years. Notice that
| this is several years before the outbreak of World War II
| and predates a large trade surplus in the late 1940s.
| [...] In 1930, the U.S. controlled about 40% of the
| world's gold reserves, but by 1950, the U.S. controlled
| nearly two-thirds of the world's gold reserves."
|
| https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-
| economist/f...
| strbean wrote:
| > what a wench and a truck can pull / destroy.
|
| According to legend, a wench can destroy a whole city
| state (Troy)!
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Certainly not at reasonable prices!
| showerst wrote:
| Not in the sense of "can't be opened without the key".
|
| Good locks buy you two things: Deterrence (maybe), and a
| set minimum of time and noise requirements to bypass them.
| If your lock reputably takes 3 minutes to pick or a Ramset
| gun to blast them open, make sure your guard comes by every
| two minutes, and otherwise stays in earshot.
| strbean wrote:
| Also 3) intrusion detection.
|
| It's obvious to the owner and the whole world that an
| intrusion has occurred if the door is sawed open or the
| lock is cut off. It's nice to know your home has been
| broken into vs. some of your jewelry is gone and you
| don't know whether to blame your teenager, a relative,
| someone who did work on your house since you last
| checked, etc.
| bigiain wrote:
| Photos of your sawed open door will probably help in your
| insurance claim too. Telling your assessor "the cops say
| they might have picked the lock" isn't something I'd want
| to rely on to get my claim approved.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Nothing is secure against an oxyacetylene torch.
|
| But if that's not the threat you are trying to protect
| against, there are locks that are sufficiently secure that
| picking or other "low-impact" defeat attempts are
| considered pretty much pointless. Abloy protec2 comes to
| mind.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| >Nothing is secure against an oxyacetylene torch.
|
| I want to build a front door with reactive-explosive
| armor. The team might get through the door, but not the
| guy with the cutting torch.
| htrp wrote:
| pretty sure trophy systems are generally not legal in any
| jurisdiction
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > Nothing is secure against an oxyacetylene torch.
|
| Can't be stuck if it's runny.
| dardeaup wrote:
| Yep! Or a plasma torch!
|
| Many locks fail quickly with just an angle grinder and a
| cut-off wheel. (as you can see on Storage Wars)
| lytfyre wrote:
| The Canadian Mint in Ottawa has a rather impressive large
| gold bar on display in the gift shop for people to lift
| and take photos with. It's not in a case or anything.
| It's chained down with a Protec padlock - and there's a
| cop a few feet away to deal with you trying something un-
| subtle.
|
| I think it's a pretty good endorsement for Abloy.
| klardotsh wrote:
| To me that sounds more like a good endorsement for having
| a guy legally authorized to use force against you
| standing guard. Any old padlock is probably safe when a
| uniformed agent of the state with weapons of varying
| lethality is standing next to it.
| achr2 wrote:
| I had an Abloy Protec2 malfunction while locked (PSA
| don't use them for key-only sashlocks) and the locksmith
| drilled it out in ~10 seconds. That is the last time I
| spend that kind of money on a lock!
| tetha wrote:
| You don't even have to go that far. Firefighters have
| core pulling kits that take care of 90% of all locks in 2
| minutes tops. And for most other locks, the thing holding
| the lock tends to be less of an issue than the lock.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| It depends on what "secure" means. Any lock can be
| destroyed with tools. Most locks can be broken with a big
| pair of bolt cutters, a drill, or, failing that, melting.
|
| If secure means "without leaving evidence of tampering,"
| things get a lot more interesting, but that has narrow
| practical use cases outside of stuff like espionage. Once
| you're in this space, we can start talking about how
| difficult something can be without specialized tools. But
| now we're leaving "I am protecting my stuff" territory and
| entering "this is just a sport and we're agreeing on a
| ruleset" territory.
|
| There are a couple of lock designs out there that I don't
| think anybody's successfully ever picked. The ones that
| first come to mind are a couple of the "smart" electronic
| locks. Many of those are junk, but a few are very well
| thought out.
| kube-system wrote:
| Security is a practice, not a destination.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Assa Abloy's Cliq (electromechanical) keys aren't able to
| be picked as far as I know (I could definitely be wrong!),
| the local international airport uses them to secure doors.
| The keys aren't cheap, we have to put up a several hundred
| dollar deposit when checking them out from airport security
| for projects.
|
| Virtually any lock can be destroyed with tools and most
| doors/walls can be busted through with enough effort. I
| think the airport police would notice that, though ;)
| tshaddox wrote:
| No one would be surprised if you showed that you could cut a
| hole in pretty much any normal door given the right cutting
| tool. Yet people seem to act surprised and betrayed to learn
| that a normal lock can be picked or broken given the right
| tool.
| henry2023 wrote:
| In this case, the right tool is an empty can and scissors
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| > No one would be surprised if you showed that you could
| cut a hole in pretty much any normal door
|
| The definition of "normal" varies by region. In European
| cities, it means a pretty heavy door of multiple layers of
| steel (and pretty unpleasant stuff in the middle) that
| would probably take 15 minutes of deafeningly loud cutting
| with a circular saw. I understand the standard for US
| suburbs is much lower (as it might as well be, given
| windows exist and the walls aren't all that sturdy either).
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Right - the quality of your locks matter a lot less if
| your average 5-year-old tee-baller can through brick
| through the wind and climb in. One always needs to
| consider their threat model when considering what
| security to invest in getting.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| A very long time ago I worked in an office building that
| had several suites of offices. One of them was a
| biotechnics company that did things like genetic analysis
| of farmed fish for selective breeding, massively
| commercially sensitive stuff. They had a "secure document
| store" built within their suite, with a thick door made
| of 19mm ply layers either side of a 6mm steel plate,
| welded to a full-length hinge, which was in turn welded
| to a 25mm steel tubing frame, with big long brackets
| bolted into the brick work of the exterior wall on one
| side and a steel beam on the other. One key in the
| possession of the CIO, one in the possession of the CEO.
| CEO was at a fish farm in Norway. CIO was in the office,
| getting paperwork out of the safe in the secure room, got
| a phone call, stepped out of the room to get a better
| signal, slam <CLICK> <KACHUNK> as six spring-loaded bolts
| about as thick as your thumb pegged the door shut.
|
| Rude words.
|
| Can't get a locksmith that can pick that particular
| Ingersoll lock. Can't get a replacement key because the
| certificate is in the room, and you'd have to drive down
| to England to get it. Can't jemmy the door open, it's too
| strong.
|
| Wait.
|
| There's a guy who parks an old Citroen in the car park, I
| bet he has tools, doesn't he work for that video company
| downstairs? Let's ask him.
|
| So yeah it took about ten seconds to get in to the secure
| room. I cut a hatch through the plasterboard with a
| Stanley knife, recovered the keys, taped the plasterboard
| back in place, and - the time-consuming bit - positioned
| their office fridge so no-one could see it.
|
| A swift appointment with an interior decorator was made
| by a certain C-level exec, and a day or two later there
| was a cooler with about 25kg of assorted kinds of salmon
| and a bottle of whisky left in my edit suite.
| taneq wrote:
| Hah, I love this sort of story. Recently I was on site
| and we needed some electrical as-built drawings. They'd
| been stashed in a tool box, which was locked (and pretty
| well designed to protect the padlock from bolt cutters /
| angle grinders). Unfortunately one of the guys had taken
| the key with him and it was now a two hour plane flight
| away. They already tried and failed to cut the lock, and
| were getting an angle grinder to just cut in through the
| lid (it was ~3mm steel sheet, so hardly impenetrable, but
| destroying the toolbox would not have been ideal) when I
| pulled the pin out of the hinge and recovered the
| drawings that way.
|
| Turns out watching Pirates of the Caribbean wasn't a
| waste of time after all. ;)
| debo_ wrote:
| If you hadn't been there to fish them out of the
| situation, they would have been boned to a scale they
| weren't prepared to deal with. You deserved the reward
| for getting them off the hook.
| andrensairr wrote:
| I know it's OT but I wanna know what your old Citroen
| was. My first car was an S1 BX. Plasticky 80s goodness. I
| know it's not everybody's idea of a classic (at least in
| Australia where Citroens aren't particularly common) but
| I loved it.
| rkomorn wrote:
| Not OP but my dad drove a CX for a while, but the real
| treat was our friend's DS.
| MattSayar wrote:
| It's like we forget rocks can easily go through windows.
| jopsen wrote:
| And if you try to put bars in the window; you'll have a
| really bad day if your house catches fire!
|
| Same with a moad full of piranhas, it's not fun to fall
| in by accident :)
|
| Best and cheapest option is a dog, or simply giving up.
| bigiain wrote:
| Best and cheapest option is a dog, decent insurance, and
| off site backups that regularly get restores tested.
|
| And maybe a little bit of not getting too attached to
| "stuff" - there's very little stuff that's truly
| irreplaceable. I'd miss my first guitar if my house was
| robbed and they took it or if my place burnt down. I'd
| miss the HiFi gear I bought in 1988 and still use, and
| maybe my modded espresso machine. But I'd get over that
| loss and my sentimental attraction to those things just
| fine, especially after I'd replaced then with my
| insurance settlement.
| marklubi wrote:
| Bought my teenage son a couple lock picking kits, he's
| picked almost every single lock we have in our house.
|
| I then picked up a sizable rock, and told him I could get
| into the house faster than he could. He didn't understand
| for a few moments, but the lesson was learned.
| taneq wrote:
| Reminds me of high school when people were buying
| expensive locks for their lockers. These locks, no matter
| how tough, all still locked onto a flimsy 1.5mm steel
| hasp that you could bend with your fingers.
| kstrauser wrote:
| And that's fair and reasonable. Of course you can cut a
| hole in a door. Everyone capable of forming thoughts on the
| subject has seen someone use a saw at some point in their
| life. However, locks greatly exaggerate their abilities, to
| the point you can forgive someone for believing that they
| actually mean them.
|
| I just now went to masterlock.com, clicked HOME & PERSONAL
| > View All Products, and picked the very first product[0].
| It says:
|
| > The 4-pin cylinder prevents picking and the dual locking
| levers provide resistance against prying and hammering.
|
| The very first thing it says is that it _prevents picking_.
| To someone who isn 't familiar with LPL, and who doesn't
| want to have someone pick their lock, this seems like a
| great product. It prevents picking! And it must, because
| otherwise it would be illegal to say that, right? But alas,
| it does not, in fact, prevent picking.
|
| Compare that to a random product page for a household front
| door[1] that says "Steel security plate in the frame helps
| to resist forced entry" and "Reinforced lock area provides
| strength and security for door hardware", which indicates
| that this might be a strong door, but doesn't claim that it
| "prevents someone kicking it in". It _helps_ to resist
| forced entry, but doesn 't say that it _prevents_ it.
|
| [0]https://www.masterlock.com/products/product/130D
|
| [1]https://www.homedepot.com/p/Masonite-36-in-x-80-in-
| Premium-6...
| koolba wrote:
| > It's quite entertaining to see how little security you
| actually get from most locks.
|
| Physical locks are for honest people. They signify that
| something is not meant to be accessed and at best slow down
| someone actively trying to access the other side of the lock.
| amarant wrote:
| They're also effective against incompetent thieves.
| Anecdotally that's a pretty high percentage of thieves you'll
| ward off that way.
| svachalek wrote:
| Exactly. There's a lot of strongly worded stuff in here
| about how easy locks are to defeat, but that's only against
| someone who's practiced the art, which is a very small
| percentage of the population. And in my experience they're
| mostly honest people interested in the technical challenge,
| rather than criminal exploitation. A typical modern lock is
| going to massively slow down or outright stop nearly
| everyone who comes up against it.
| jopsen wrote:
| Yeah, moar burglars aren't the kind who spend 10000 hours
| honing their skills.
|
| People with that kind of dedication can often find
| gainful employment :)
| mrweasel wrote:
| I recall either "The lock picking lawyer" or McNally explains
| that only in 3% of cases are locks picked during a burglary.
| In all other cases windows or doors are simply forced open.
| So at best locks are meant to prevent of crimes of
| opportunities.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Yeah my understanding of burgling is it's all about speed.
| One of the best deterrents you can have is I think called
| "laminate glass,"that doesn't shatter into a bunch of
| pieces when it's hit. It has a tendency to hold together so
| they have to spend precious seconds knocking out more of it
| which almost always makes them run away rather than risk
| it.
|
| If I can go out on a limb here, I also think I recall that
| they have very specific things they look for. For instance
| they will often run straight for the master bedroom and
| start pulling out drawers/checking closets because people
| tend to keep jewelry in there. They want small items.
|
| Anything that slows them down tends to deter them even if
| they make an initial attempt
| eurleif wrote:
| Impact glass is one option. Another option is to have
| security film installed on your existing windows:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_APQ3CzQno
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| You know those super secure double-glazed front doors, with
| the kind of hook things that engage when you push the
| handle up?
|
| You can spudger one of the glass units out and back in from
| the outside, without leaving a mark.
|
| They look better than they are.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Most uPVC windows and doors should have the beads on the
| inside and a solid profile on the outside.
|
| I have heard of someone cutting through all the plastic
| and pulling the glass out that way, though.
|
| Both rather more obvious that surreptitiously jiggling
| the obscenely crappy Eurocylinder that the door came
| with.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| > at best locks are meant to prevent of crimes of
| opportunities
|
| A lock forces the thief to either spend time defeating it
| or physically break something. Even if it doesn't slow him
| down it should hopefully make it visibly obvious that he's
| doing something illicit.
| paradox460 wrote:
| This is why the complaint about smart locks being hacked is
| so utterly ridiculous to me. A thief isn't going to hack
| your lock, they're going to bash a window in
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Don't know why you are being downvoted because it's true.
| Lots of people wouldn't try to break past a lock but if you
| leave a door open many people would fall for the temptation.
| tim333 wrote:
| It requires a fair amount of skill to pick a lock quickly.
| Someone capable could probably make more money doing
| something legit.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Having heard of a typical locksmith's rates, if you can
| pick locks well then you really, really do not need to
| resort to burglary.
| sgerenser wrote:
| Yeah, like running a Youtube channel on lock picking.
| dgacmu wrote:
| I think that it's more useful to think of all defenses
| against physical intrusion as increasing the cost of
| intrusion in some way, be that time, skill, risk of being
| caught, access to specialized devices, etc.
|
| Most "normal" locks don't increase the cost too much but they
| do raise it - perhaps enough for a thief to pick another
| target, or perhaps enough for the thief to choose another
| method of entry such as kicking in the door (which itself
| comes with additional risk of detection).
| jihadjihad wrote:
| LPL is a crown jewel of YouTube. His April Fools' Day videos
| are hilarious, too, like the one where he gets into his wife's
| beaver [0] (SFW).
|
| 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRozAbaKs9M
| bouke wrote:
| The Dutch translation is NSFW though as it translates
| "beaver" as suggested.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > he routinely destroys bogus claims of various companies
| within seconds
|
| I watched his video on high-security shipping container locks.
| Jeez, two minutes long? They must be tough!
|
| No, it was two minutes long because he bypassed ten of them,
| one after the other.
| masklinn wrote:
| That's McNally rather than LPL.
| LoganDark wrote:
| You are using a Master Lock model 606. It can be opened
| with a Master Lock model 606.
| xnzakg wrote:
| This one? https://youtu.be/_goIYP3FfO8
| JCM9 wrote:
| Great channel, and yes the ineffectiveness of nearly all
| commercially available locks is depressing. At best it would
| briefly slow down a skilled picker.
| tuetuopay wrote:
| The most absurd thing is the original video response from the
| company was good, and with a very compelling argument: their
| customers never saw shimming in the field. Their user base don't
| need shimming resistance: security needs to be adequate, not
| perfect. And they follow-up by presenting options about people
| requiring the lock to be shim-proof.
|
| Granted, in this day and age, it's a disgrace to still make locks
| that can be shimmed. Especially when the shim-proof alternatives
| they show just have an additional notch to catch the shim.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| > their customers never saw shimming in the field.
|
| This is arguably good PR, but a terrible response. Shimming is
| so quick and hard to detect that even if you had 24-7 video of
| the lock, you probably wouldn't notice that the lock had been
| shimmed. You would just assume that someone lost a key.
| masklinn wrote:
| Also the company sold a picking-proof version... at a higher
| price.
| robotnikman wrote:
| I wonder how many stories like this are caused simply because a
| corporate lawyer is looking for some work to do, and maybe to
| meet some kind of internal KPI.
| pcaharrier wrote:
| Former in-house lawyer here and in my experience the answer is
| something like "probably less than you think." The job of the
| lawyer is to advise the client and (within the bounds of
| ethical rules) advocate for their position, not to come up what
| the company's position should be.
| robotnikman wrote:
| Interesting, thanks for the insight!
| jimbokun wrote:
| > Under questioning, however, one of Proven's employees admitted
| that he had been able to duplicate McNally's technique, leading
| to the question from McNally's lawyer: "When you did it yourself,
| did it occur to you for one moment that maybe the best thing to
| do, instead of file a lawsuit, was to fix [the lock]?"
|
| Sometimes a single question tells you how the entire case is
| going to go.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > On July 7, the company dismissed the lawsuit against McNally
| instead.
|
| > Proven also made a highly unusual request: Would the judge
| please seal almost the entire court record--including the request
| to seal?
|
| Tough at first then running away with the tail between their
| legs. Typical bullying behavior.
|
| > but Proven complained about a "pattern of intimidation and
| harassment by individuals influenced by Defendant McNally's
| content."
|
| They have to know it's generated by their own lawsuit and how
| they approached it, right? They can't be that oblivious to turn
| around and say "Judge, look at all the craziness this generated,
| we just have to seal the records!". It's like an ice-cream cone
| that licks itself.
|
| > the case became a classic example of the Streisand Effect, in
| which the attempt to censor information can instead call
| attention to it.
|
| A constant reminder to keep the people who don't know what they
| are doing (including the owners of the company!) from the social
| media.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > A constant reminder to keep the people who don't know what
| they are doing (including the owners of the company!) from the
| social media.
|
| I'm just guessing based on the contents of the article, but it
| sounds like a typical "hard-fist founder-run company" so good
| luck convincing the founder to not sit on social media and
| argue their points.
| dekhn wrote:
| also known as the 'double down on stupid' and 'triple down on
| stupid'
| zahlman wrote:
| So... what _should_ we be using for physical security?
| shagie wrote:
| The question is "what do you want to secure against?" Describe
| the threat and then go from there. What are you securing? Is it
| meth-head or teenager? Or is it person determined to get in
| while making your insurance grill you over "did you lock it?"
| alistairSH wrote:
| In the case of a trailer, you do some combination of...
|
| - Receiver pin lock similar to the one highlighted here (but
| probably not that exact one) - Wheel lock / boot - Receiver
| coupler lock (locks inside the cup-shaped receiver, preventing
| somebody towing the trailer with an undersized ball) - Secured
| storage lot / garage
|
| But, basically all options are only going to stop random
| opportunistic thieves. If somebody really wants whatever you're
| protecting, they'll find a way. That's why insurance exists.
| teekert wrote:
| Just clicked around after watching the vid and stumbled onto
| [0]. So there are locks he recommends... When it requires focus
| + several minutes to pick.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrV86GqlY8o
| shagie wrote:
| Long (often an hour long) with significant snark videos going
| over the filings:
| https://www.youtube.com/@RunkleOfTheBailey/search?query=Prov...
| modeless wrote:
| > In the end, Proven's lawsuit likely cost the company serious
| time and cash--and generated little but bad publicity.
|
| There's no such thing as bad publicity. People say this for a
| reason. It's true. I'm willing to bet that their sales have only
| increased since this started.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Who is in the market for a product that doesn't work as
| advertised?
| leni536 wrote:
| Lockpicking youtubers? But I guess that market got exhausted
| early on.
| paxys wrote:
| There's absolutely such a thing as bad publicity. Entire
| products and even companies have tanked because of bad
| publicity. I don't know why this myth continues to be so
| prevalent.
| henry2023 wrote:
| I didn't buy a Juicero back in 2015. Seems like I was not the
| only one.
| ktallett wrote:
| You're right! I'm off to the next Fyre festival and making sure
| my bag is secure with a Proven lock..... I wonder if Dassani
| still exist so I definitely can quench my thirst.
| rkhassen9 wrote:
| Um...shouldn't Proven just hire Trevor McNally as a consultant or
| heck, make him a partner? I mean...can you imagine the next level
| reputation they'd have if they can adapt and make a Trevor-proof
| lock?
|
| I'd buy it.
| zem wrote:
| clearly proven needs to sue whoever initiated that lawsuit for
| "mockery produced for the purpose of humiliating plaintiff".
| tptacek wrote:
| The whole case is up on RECAP:
|
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industr...
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| ugh...the YouTuber inflection/accent strikes again. Simply can't
| focus on the content with that fake voice and the same inflection
| at the end of every sentence.
| vladmk wrote:
| Yeah saw this - I can't believe a company would steer so far
| wrong...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-27 23:00 UTC)