This sentiment is expressed in the second sentence of the linked article.
They’re also used as evidence of wrongdoing; if a lock is defeated without a sign of tampering, sometimes police and insurance companies are not inclined to think there was a crime.
The article then goes on to completely miss the point of that statement.
Be that as it may, I interpreted the plain statement as an attempted refutation of the contents of the article. The author of the article directly mentions the sentiment, which I take as an indicator that they believe it will be adequately addressed. So I believe that a claim to the contrary must include an explaination of why they believe the author did not address this point, rather than just reiterating it as though it were a new or novel idea in the discussion. As it stands, without acknowledging that the author already expressed this same sentiment, I have to conclude that GP did not read it.