Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben_w | Hacker News Reader

> That’s as much of a contradiction as a thief wanting to be a large part of lock regulation.

Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer, that would be a massive improvement.

Now, the NSA and crypto standards, that would have worked as a metaphor for your point.

(I don't think it's correct, but that's an independent claim, and I am not only willing to discover that I'm wrong about their sincerity, I think everyone writing that legislation should actively assume the worst while they do so).

View on HN

> > That’s as much of a contradiction as a thief wanting to be a large part of lock regulation.

> Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer, that would be a massive improvement.

A thief is not a lock picker and they don't have the same incentive. A thief in a position to dictate lock regulation would try to have a legal backdoor on every lock in the world. One that only he has the master key for. Something something NSA & cryptography :)

Indeed, but locks are so bad (as demonstrated by LPL) that even a thief would make them better.

> Something something NSA & cryptography :)

Indeed, as I said :)

> Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer, that would be a massive improvement.

If you've watched his videos then surely you should know that lockpicking isn't even on the radar for thieves as there are much easier and faster methods such as breaking the door or breaking a window.

Surely that just makes the thief/locks metaphor even worse? Or have I missed something?

> Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer

The Lockpicking Lawyer is not a thief, so I don’t get your desire to incorrectly nitpick. Especially when you clearly understood the point.

You noticed your confusion but still went on the aggressive, huh. Ah well.

"A is demonstrating a proof of B" does not require "A is a clause in B".

A being TLPL, B being that the entire lock industry is bad, so bad that anyone with experience would be a massive improvement, for example a thief.

I’m not confused and my reply was not aggressive. I don’t think it will be a good use of time to continue this conversation because discussions should get more substantive as they go on and this was an irrelevant tangent to which I have no desire to get sucked in to.

Other people have commented to further explain the point in other words. I recommend you read those, perhaps it’ll make you understand.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40428005

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40428280

Reply on news.ycombinator.com