Hacker News Reader

Comment by Domenic_S | Hacker News Reader

I briefly looked into buying high-security locks and reinforcing my door frames when I moved into my new house. Then I realized I had two massive, 20-year-old windows on either side of the front door. In other words, a $350 lock isn't going to stop any crackheads who really want to get in.

Physical security (the real, you-can't-break-this kind) is for banks and governments. For everything else there's video.

View on HN

It's true that the average random person doesn't need a lock by Abloy/EVVA/etc. just because it's (as close as possible to)unpickable, but I would always avoid bumpable locks as well as ones that are (more)vulnerable to destructive attacks, two categories which include quite a lot of 'high security' locks including UL 437 rated ones. Bumping is still rarer than breaking a window, crowbarring a weak door frame, or kicking at the spot of a weak lock, but is definitely increasing in popularity as it's significantly less obtrusive and doesn't leave visible damage that may alert passers by while the crime is still in progress.

Myself, when I am able to own my own house, I am definitely fitting upgraded (unbumpable) locks as part of basic diligence with regards to security, along with fixing any easily breakable windows.

It's also worth noting that windows can always be reinforced/refitted with laminated glass or even protective films that provide enough protection that the random opportunistic crackhead will probably give up when it doesn't break straight away so as not to get caught. Burglaries that take longer than 30 seconds or so to get in will often be aborted because of the risk of getting caught, especially when there are so many houses with no or insufficient alarms, windows that can server as an easy entry point without a motion sensor behind them, and weak locks that can easily be bumped/pulled[1].

If you have big breakable windows, always invest in a good alarm with motion and/or glass-break sensors though.

[1]Pulling/snapping is gradually becoming the new bumping - some lock designs are physically weak enough that they can be either broken inside the door or physically pulled out with hand tools. Example news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17075027

This really hit me recently when I left the house after doing some cryptography research.

When I "locked" the wooden door with a piece of metal that has been photographed by probably countless cameras... I just had to laugh at myself and wonder why I bad been programmed to do this seemingly pointless action my entire life.

I don't follow -- why are your keys being photographed by countless cameras?

Have you ever taken your keys out when you're at/leaving a store?

No. Why would you? The casualness with which the question is put makes me curious, but my home keys are generally something I use in the door at home, not at the store.

Those of us who use cars often keep our car keys and house keys on the same keyring. While walking out the door of the store you pull your keys out.

The thought hand't actually occurred to me to keep my car keys on my key ring. They're gigantic these days. But I guess a lot of people do.

Right. That old adage about "keeping honest people honest" I think really applies. The ol' $20 Schlage deadbolt will keep the random bored teenager from wandering in. My personal feeling is that folks who are... shall we say on the edge ethically still make a distinction between wandering in somewhere freely, and literally breaking in.

It's not that pointless, it filters out a certain casual thief type quite effectively. For most people its about cost/benefit analysis, and if it's a minor pain in the ass to do something, then it won't happen.

I've researched the "why" and a couple years ago had the opportunity to discuss some of the broader ideas in the history & anthropology of locks. It was actually titled "Why do you lock your door?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqjacHSTd48

Reply on news.ycombinator.com