Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnFen | Hacker News Reader

> Isn't the point of a lock just to keep honest people honest?

No. Honest people don't need to be "kept honest".

Locks have the same purpose as other security systems (including electronic ones like crypto, etc.).

They aren't intended to (and can't) keep a determined attacker out. What they do is increase the cost (in terms of time, effort, risk, etc.) of gaining access. The point is -- as far as possible -- to make the cost of gaining access exceed the benefit that would be gained by that access.

View on HN

Honest people do need to be kept honest. Even the most saintly can be tempted.

If you found a twenty on the floor in an abandoned alleyway, would you hand it in to police, or would you steal that money?

If your first thought was "It's not stealing for such a small amount", or "It's clearly been abandoned, so it's ok to take it", then you're the target audience for being kept honest.

Your other point is spot on: the aim is to increase the friction of entry and raise a mental barrier in the mind of the subject which results in an outcome you would prefer (no break-in).

>If your first thought was "It's not stealing for such a small amount"

Well, actually... where I live, it would not be stealing for such a small amount, given that you don't know who lost it, and it was found in an abandoned alleyway (and not say, an office, store or station etc. where it could be handed over to local personnel). Had you said fifty, the situation would've been different.</nitpick>

Agreed. The amount is right on the edge of legality. Should you report it? Should you make an effort to find someone to hand it to? If the first shopkeeper around the corner says "Could be anyone's. Keep it" for a fifty, does that constitute a reasonable search for the owner?

Essentially everyone has stolen at some point in their lives, and almost everyone has gone into private property they theoretically shouldn't have gone into.

My door has a lock, but must adults could get in by kicking it a few times with determination. That's true of most locks in existence. They're there to stop people who don't actually want to cause any real damage.

> Essentially everyone has stolen at some point in their lives

Isn't this a fairly wild claim? I've never stolen anything and can't imagine doing so. That's a pretty dismal view of the human race isn't it.

I don’t think they’re suggesting that everyone on earth has purposefully become a thief at one point, but that sometimes it just happens.

I’ve definitely walked out of a supermarket with a bottle of water that I picked up while shopping and forgot to pay for - I still stole it, even if unintentionally.

How often do you unintentionally walk into someone’s unlocked house and steal something, though?

In the Canadian North, it's traditional to leave your summer cabin unlocked over the winter so that if someone is lost in the woods they can come in and warm up. It wasn't unusual to come back find that someone had used it over the winter.

I've unintentionally stolen dozens of lighters from the houses I've visited while I was a smoker.

That's... not what the parent upthread said, though.

> I’ve definitely walked out of a supermarket with a bottle of water that I picked up while shopping and forgot to pay for - I still stole it, even if unintentionally.

You only steal it if you realize it and don't return back to pay. Happened with me a few times, the cashiers will really appreciate it.

Does that also apply when the cashier gives you too much/not enough return cash?

A while ago my to-go order from McD somehow included an extra cheeseburger.

Was that maybe a "present" by the company to a loyal customer? Should I have gone back and paid for a cheeseburger I never ordered? But if I give it back to them, they would just throw it in the trash anyway because they can't sell it to another customer.

I did this with an entire rucksack full of groceries once when I was tired and used the self-checkout. When I came back the cashiers expressed surprise that I even did!

You complained about the theft claim, but not the trespassing claim, so it seems I still need that lock to keep you from wandering in.

You probably have stolen something, even if it's just a failure to return a book you borrowed from someone, or office supplies that wandered off with you (pens vanish like you wouldn't belive).

Digitally, I'd say yes (depending on your viewpoints of IP.) Physically, no.

Ikea pencils?

Stealing a pen at the supermarket or entering the neighborhood's garden qualify as being a kid doing stupid stuff

Breaking into someone else's house with the intent of stealing it's something completely different

Maybe if you live in Baltimore or Detroit but in most of the US people really need a good reason to do that kind of thing.

In college I had a friend who didn't even bother locking his door and always left his keys in his car and it was never a problem.

The second half of your post is survivor bias.

The first part of your post is pure hyperbole. There are plenty of places less crime ridden then Baltimore or Detroit where you absolutely have to lock your things or they are likely to get stolen. Pretty much any urban area in the US. Most suburbs as well if you park on the street. Kids will go down and just try doors. They have no intent of picking anything or forcible entry, just snatching the low hanging fruit.

I have lived in northwestern Nebraska so I get it, there are places where you don’t have to ever lock your door.. that is the exception.

To counter your friend: I lived in one of the lowest crime rate suburbs in the US. Stupidly left my door unlocked in an apartment parking lot overnight.. everything of value was cleaned out in the morning.

This is not even a US specific issue. Vancouver, BC has a serious problem with (heroin, meth, cocaine) addicts and property crime. Theft from vehicles and from vehicles in supposedly "secure" underground parking garages is epidemic. No bicycle worth more than 50 dollars is safe locked in public, no matter what kind of lock it has on it.

-Anecdotal, but indicates there's a certain honour among thieves - if you volunteer to visit inmates in Norwegian prisons, you get a parking pass to keep prison staff from having your car towed or bike removed while you're visiting.

An inmate advised me that I should just leave that pass on the windshield at all times - as it would be more effective against theft than any immobiliser.

I did leave it in place, and a few months later, just about every car parked curbside down my street had had its stereo and valuables snatched - except mine.

Now, obviously, this may have been a result of my stereo being pretty basic, though of recent manufacture from a renowned brand - but I like to think it was because of the visitor's service pass.

Vancouver is probably even worse. Not only is crime rampant, out of misguided compassion for drug users they have for all intents and purposes decriminalized petty crime in a sizable section (DTES) of the city. Police will quite literally not even arrest repeat "frequent flyers" even when seen seen prying into buildings and security gates.

I live in a very low crime area, yet even in my sleepy neighborhood (semi rural), we had a break-in a couple years before buying our house. It turned out to be a couple of teenagers that wanted some quick cash (probably for drugs). That was the only break-in for years, and there hasn't been one for the several years I've lived in my house, so you never know when someone will try to steal something.

That being said, a lock has to be just good enough to deter theft. In my area, that's means a simple door lock for houses and a U-lock for bicycles. In other areas, you need far more security. But to goal isn't to keep out a determined attacker, but to make it more worthwhile for the thief to move on to the next house/car/bike than to try to get past your lock.

It still isnt clear to me that at this level that locking your door is a win.

If they break in you still have to pay to repair the damage and the things they've taken.

I'm fairly certain, if someone broke into my house, the biggest bill would be repairs, not replacements.

Your household insurance might well refuse to pay out if there isn't evidence of forced entry. That's a fairly sizeable variation in the cost of being broken into ...

Maybe, I probably wouldn't try to claim on the insurance though. My most expensive to replace thing is probably my cd collection, which as far as I'm aware thieves don't go for, my tv is small cheap and unbranded, my laptop is ancient and the battery is knackered. I suspect the most fence-able possession I've got is a Kitchenaid mixer.

The only reason I even have contents insurance is because it comes with the buildings insurance.

Ironically, perhaps, the case I was thinking of when I wrote the comment was my friend's insurance refusing to pay out on his CD collection being stolen because there was no sign of forced entry (he'd left the patio doors unlocked).

This was a number of years ago though, whether thieves still take CDs is an interesting question.

This is from 2012, no doubt the trend has continued

https://www.economist.com/britain/2012/01/07/not-worth-nicki...

It seems likely. It was _quite some time ago_.

Pretty much every suburban area has a decent amount of home burglary. Sure, rural areas not so much. But take a look at the the stats at the bottom of this page and you'll see lots more than Baltimore and Detroit: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-burglaries-in-t...

> Pretty much every suburban area has a decent amount of home burglary. Sure, rural areas not so much.

But more than you'd think. Criminals are aware that they can often be in a different state before the police arrive at a rural crime scene, reducing the chance of getting caught.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com