> 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.
He partnered with some radio program called radradio where the host had a lot of personal issues and the show ultimately got axed. The radio host was known for having issues with alcohol, but they kept partnering with him because he kept shilling their WeFunder. They've raised over $6m in SAFEs but considering they are $9m in debt, haven't broken $100k lifetime revenue after 7 years, and seem to have over a million a year burn rate, it's doubtful that the shares from those SAFEs (if ever executed) would ever be in the money.
Going on a tangent:
Depending on your industry, taking a while to see any revenue is common. Eg look into biotech or the people trying to make atomic fusion a reality.
Debt is just as valid a way to finance your company as equity is. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theo... for the theory.
That is true. But Sircles, which appears to be just another social recommendation app, is not in one of those industries.
Yes, Sircles is probably pretty dodgy.
Incredible
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.
Also:
> “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.”
So when a great product is not a great product, it turns out to be great alone for the fact of being built by republicans.
I’ve also seen people use “liberal” as a literal curse word before. On one “reality show”, a member of the cast broke down while highly intoxicated and started screaming at other people saying:
“You’re worse than a beep! You’re a liberal”
It’s insane just how far the political divide has become.
But if your adversary is lying knowingly to everyone saying you are a criminal and should be locked up or deported then I wonder what's there to improve
The game of cooperation only works if you're not playing with someone who is constantly trying to exploit your cooperation attempts
As for who’s responsible, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However it’s hard to deny that conduct of one party is far far less professional than the other party.
I honestly think politicians should be thrown in jail for lying. But that will never happen because they’re all too busy being corrupt; the entire lot of them.
So she wasn't wrong, but saying that out loud was pretty stupid.
Can you name one time Trump immediately regretted what he said about the Left and explained that it was an overgeneralization? Also again, in Clinton's case it was a single unscripted statement. By contrast Trump has a pattern of calling opponents vermin, the anti-christ, evil, warning of a bloodbath to come... Yea the left's attacks on the right just don't seem nearly as bad especially if it is just being called "deplorable" once. I could write a book that is just hateful Trump quotes. Ganna print it and give it to my son one day as inspiration for how to be an honourable leader. /s
I say all this as a Canadian that would have voted for Trump in 2016 if I could have.
When he published about this he was bombarded with messages from locksmiths complaining that they all knew about this and kept it secret for a reason! https://www.mattblaze.org/papers/kiss.html
It was a fascinating clash between computer security principles - disclose vulnerabilities - and physical locksmith culture, which was all about trade secrets.
[699BB20FD159089A03DD8935575805B1168A8E63 7.4G 1080 blu]
The Kremlin Letter, 1970 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065950/) - I recall someone saying this film really shows the ugly underbelly of intelligence services. This is an interesting film but it is very dark and somewhat disturbing. This one predates Watergate - it is a Cold War spy flick and makes Smiley's People look warm and cuddly ..
The Conversation, 1974 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071360/) - Gene Hackman's character resurfaces a couple decades later in Enemy of the State (1998).
The Parallax View, 1974 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071970/)
The Tamarind Seed, 1974 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072253/) - A subtle movie that superficially seems like a romance.
So that's from the top of my head. All are eminently watchable films and some possibly classic canon contenders.
it isn't a "cool" way of saying 'forgotten'
"I'm a locksmith, and I'm a locksmith."
Software was updated all the time, and it’s much more difficult to do that with locks.
They had update mechanisms sure. But it was very much upto you to run. When XP came out most people used dial-up (at least in the UK), after 2002 ADSL internet started to become ubiquitous and computers were on the internet for longer periods.
They had to start baking security into every aspect of the OS. It was one of the reasons Vista came out several years later than planned. They had to pull people from Vista development and move them onto Windows XP SP2.
One of the reasons Vista was such a reviled OS is because the UAC controls broke lots of piece of software which ran under XP, 2000 and 98.
> Software was updated all the time, and it’s much more difficult to do that with locks.
YIt wasn't unusual to run un-patched software that come from a disc for years. You had to manually download patches and run them yourself. A software update / next version could take like 30 minutes or so on 56k dialup to download. If you didn't need to download a patch, you probably didn't.
A lot of kids learned about cybersecurity and emulator config (and Harvest Moon) because of it, so net win?
When I quietly mentioned this, the response was that everyone knows this but we don’t talk about it.
When Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was assassinated with no signs of forced entry on his hotel room, let’s just say it wasn’t surprising. And no, I don’t think these security flaws are some conspiracy or by design - it’s simply the difficulty of updating firmware on 10 year old boards with a 20 year old design with millions of them out in the field. And they cost around $750 a piece to replace and that was back in 2010.
Maybe they used a master key system instead.
They expensed a sledgehammer and obtained the password through physical modification of the safe using a careful application of force. Some employees complained that meant the safe wasn't... well, safe.
The security team replied "Working as Intended" - no safe is truly safe, it's just designed to slow down an attacker. At that moment, I was enlightened.
The doors were heavy, 45-minute fire-rated security doors, aka "Fucking heavy doors that can cut your fingers just from inertia or wind.".
These doors had to be opened quickly in the middle of the night. There was no locksmith on call, but there were boilermakers. Supports and a chain were welded to the doors, and a T-Rex container mover was used to carefully pull the doors off the building.
The whole operation took less than an hour. Physical security is a matter of time and resources.
If there are any rated safes on Amazon, I can't find them. A real TL-30 1 cubic foot safe sells for about $2000 and weighs about 500 pounds. Amazon sells something that looks similar for about $100 and weighs about 15 pounds.
There's a separate set of ratings for fire protection, from the NFPA. Fire safes are much simpler. They have more insulating materials and less steel.
[1] https://www.vaultandsafe.com/vault-safe-classifications/
All Security
Hinges on the arrival
Of people with guns All security
is merely a fantasy
of mortal people.One would be that people are the weak point in your security system. If all your organizational security hinges on one guy not folding, that guy is the natural target. Whether a literal 5$ wrench is used or they bribe him makes no difference.
That means you could consider shaping your org in a way that is resistent against this by e.g. decentralizing secrets. That means instead of bringing a "5$ wrench" to one person (which may even work without raising suspicion), you now need to convince multiple people at once which is much more unlikely to work without being detected.
The only defence is to not have the secret at all.
As for secrets, you sometimes need to have them for very good reasons. If you can reach the same goals without a secret while having the same protection going without a secret is a good choice.
But let's assume if you want the cryptographic protections of confidentiality (through encryption), authenticity (through signatures) and integrity (also through signatures or hashes) chances are someone somewhere has to store a secret. If that someone isn't you it is someone else (or something else).
But if you want to protect data with encryption and you should be the only one who can decrypt it I don't really know how you would do it without any form of secret.
If they want our information, they should have to become literal tyrants, send armed men after us and violate human rights in order to get it. Not push a button on a computer to tap into their warrantless global dragnet surveilance networks and suddenly have our entire private lives revealed to them on a computer screen.
Yes, people will fold if they are kidnapped and tortured. That's not news. Forcing them to stoop to that is the entire design. Once the situation has escalated to that level, you are justified in killing them in self-defense. Torturers don't make a habit of allowing their victims to live and testify about it.
Don't make me link 1053 ;)
every comment that has little bit content of security/cryptography/secure/blockchain/CIA etc always mention this particular entry
He is a great source of knowledge on physical security for laymen and professionals alike, and leaves an impression of an extremely amicable and well-rounded human being.
That's why one of the more advanced challenges in lock picking is to minimize the amount of evidence you leave. Eg even a normal pick can leave some scratches on and in the lock in different places than a normal key.
If I remember right, 'bumping' is an interesting technique partially because it leaves even less of a trace.
When I lived in a less than stellar neighbourhood in Germany, we had windows that you couldn't throw a brick through. (Some tougher than usual glass.)
Folks come up with some super secure idea for securing my account and I think "Yeah but maybe I forget the thing ... I do still want to access it."
The same is true for locks and safes as well.
Being one of the few people who never had their bicycle stolen in a city where this is common, the trick that always works is: Just make your lock harder to attack than other locks that safeguard comparable things.
Good lock + old looking bicycle = no theft
"I parked my old, crappy bike and started locking it. Some guy went past and said, "Don't worry, love - no-one will nick that", and a passing crackhead said "I fuckin' would", and we three strangers shared a moment of humour together. "
Still lots of ways to crack a poorly executed OTP.
Good lock¹ + old looking bicycle = no theft
¹ attached to solid fence or bicycle rackSometimes a single question tells you how the entire case is going to go.
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).
Most locks are only good if the attacker doesn't have any tools.
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.
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.
The Louvre security staff similarly just learned this lesson.
The main thing locks do is make it noisy to get in.
A hardened metal safe designed to be resistant to cutting can still be cut through, just not in seconds with a screamer saw (trade name for a metal cutting circular saw)
If you want truly secure, encase your metal box in concrete like John Wick. Access is difficult but security is high :)
FYI, most safes already have a decently thick concrete layer — that’s most of why safes are heavy! (Or, I guess you could say, adding a concrete layer is cheaper than making the steel thicker.)
But they also have a rubber or foam (often styrofoam in cheaper safes) layer, to “smooth out” the force from a sledgehammer, jackhammer, or just dropping the thing out the window.
And a layer of compressible wet(!) sand, to spread out the point stress from a hammer and chisel, impact gun, gunshot, or small explosive configured for concussive force. (The goal here is essentially to replicate the behavior of a bulletproof vest.)
Plus, they often contain a layer to bind and foul and dull (or even break) the teeth of drill bits and reciprocating/chain/band saws. This can be any number of things — low-melting-point plastics, recycled broken glass, etc — but look up “proteus” for a fun read.
If the safe’s designer is clever, just a few materials can serve several of these functions at once. But more is always better. Which is why good safes (and vaults) are so dang thick. It’s not to solve one problem really well; it’s to mitigate N problems acceptably well, for a frighteningly large value of N.
In an analog to the somewhat frequent observation on HN that if you don't care whether the code is correct I can make it run arbitrarily quickly, if you don't care if the contents of the safe survive there's a lot of high-energy ways to blast it to smithereens. This is generally not considered a problem to be solved with a safe, though. If you want to prevent "being blasted to smithereens" that you'll need a completely different approach.
The law is someone less picky about armed guards, though, so you may just want to pay some thugs to watch your safe.
See https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ (LockPickingLawyer).
There went Uncanny X-Men 94 through 300.
Saw the same, except it was bolt cutters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At its worst, people get their fancy bikes robbed as they're riding them in big cities like London; at its best, nobody in small villages locks their bikes because they all know each other.
In terms of locks, general advice is to get an angle-grinder resistant U-lock and lock it through the rear frame triangle+wheel+some solid object.
Since a U-lock like that is impossible to defeat with anything that's not a power tool, and you'd need to spend several minutes grinding through it [0] [1], most thieves will not bother. If they cut through whatever the bike is locked to, they still have a bike that's locked to itself.
For extra security you may want to do the same with the front wheel using something like a chain lock. Locking the saddle is also a good idea. Locks with alarms that notify you could be a decent idea too. And/or just get bike insurance.
This costs money to administer but it means that nobody in Japan needs to overly worry about their bicycle being stolen. Huge locks are not needed, nor is GPS tracking or third party registration schemes.
The idea of getting a 'hack bike' that looks undesirable is often touted as a solution to cycle theft in the West. However, thieves just want money, so the 'hack bike' that can be easily sold trumps the hard-to-sell expensive bike if money is needed now, for tonight's high. More money can be tomorrow's problem.
Of course none of these work if the thief is part of a ring that is targeting your bike because it's high value.
No, thickness is an irrelevant property to an angle grinder. You're adding something like a second of grinding per kg of material. Makes no sense. The trick is to use grinder-resistant locks. Those extend grinding time to minutes.
https://thebestbikelock.com/security/angle-grinder-proof-bik...
Unfortunately I don’t think a lot of bike thefts are opportunistic and the value of the bike isn’t the motivating factor.
A tatty bike with 2 (or even 3!) high quality locks is a much lower target than a half decent looking bike with just a single cheap lock.
The more opportunistic the thief, the better your chances of not getting your bike stolen if you have 2 more locks than everyone around you. Heck, I'd argue, due to their unusual nature of being (not) used as a lock, a dozen zip ties might be more effective than a 3rd of 4th lock, simply because no thief is expecting to encounter it. They want a quick getaway, spending 20 seconds per tie * 10 ties is likely much longer than what it's worth for them, especially if your bike isn't that nice.
They are often stolen for parts.
I don’t think bikes are stolen for parts, but commodity bikes are probably a big target.
I 100% agree with you, most bike thefts are opportunistic.
I know that high end bikes do get stripped for parts but I think that’s got to be mostly after they are taken and pretty rare.
There’s been some raids in London where they found scrapyards full of stolen bikes. Most are still whole. Even those stolen to order.
Actually I do have a “cafe lock”. Its purpose is just to slow someone down enough for me to catch them on foot. I’ve once successfully used the strap on my helmet for the same purpose in Barcelona too.
The illusion of security is really all you have.
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.
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).
In any shithole society in which that's become the attitude, the solution is citizens becoming at least as brutal themselves.
If you're not ready, able and willing to whip out a pistol and instantly put two bullets right between the eyes of each one of those criminals, you're probably better off pulling out your phone and covertly dialing 911... After you have gotten as far away from those people as possible.
> the solution is citizens becoming at least as brutal themselves
Becoming a brutal, violent person capable of ending another human being's life is a long process. It's not a switch that people just flip. Especially civilized people from developed countries where it is likely they will go their entire lives without experiencing violence.
Even if they do manage it, they'll have to pay the price. There are professional soldiers out there who are traumatized by the lives they have taken. Normal citizens will have it that much worse... And that's if they don't screw it up and end up going to prison for excessive use of force which can easily turn self-defense into cold-blooded murder.
> In any shithole society
I'm brazilian. I live in exactly that kind of shithole society. You should see the hilariously violent liveleak videos this country produces. Way too many of them are the result of people trying to fight their way out of a robbery, or intervening in a crime in progress. I remember this particularly cartoonish video where a child is running away from something, pistol in hand, and some guy randomly decides to trip him up. He gets up, shoots the guy dead and resumes his escape as though absolutely nothing had just happened.
This is a country where the population is prone to brutally lynching criminals, by the way. Ironically, the drug traffickers are the most effective at it. They routinely dispense brutal violence against the lesser criminals who hurt their drug trade by scaring off potential customers. It's gotten to the point they have formed parallel governments, complete with laws, tribunals and taxes.
I get it. The sheer audacity of criminals is offensive and the impunity is truly soul crushing. This sense of impunity permeates the life of every brazilian. It feels like there's no justice. I'm just saying that if you aim to fight this impunity, you need a far more sophisticated approach than telling random bystanders to be "fit" and "stubborn". That sort of thing will accomplish nothing but the eventual deaths of well meaning people.
Of course, if you ever get a Bukele in power all the leftists will be out in force crying about the poor criminal's human rights etc - always a good reminder that these situations are intentionally inflicted from above.
That belief will get people killed. A simple web search yields numerous results. For instance:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/home-depot-worker-fatally-shot-ca...
> if you ever get a Bukele in power all the leftists will be out in force crying about the poor criminal's human rights etc
Current president of Brazil literally makes excuses for them. "I'm so tired of watching people die just because they robbed a phone", he says. "It was just to buy some beer", as though crime was an actual legitimate profession. That is the absolute state of this country. Mad Max would be an improvement over this shithole. In the Mad Max universe it's literally kill or be killed but you don't have leftists worshipping the criminals and shitting all over the "fascist" police defending them.
Police is powerless to stop it. If they try, they are tried and imprisoned by the same government that hired them to do it. It is already common knowledge that military police is one of the worst career choices you can make. The country is losing police officers at a rate of thousands per year. Not enough people are signing up for this shit. Meanwhile, drug gangs dominate over a quarter of our territory. The current speculation is that they finance judges and politicians. In other words, it is not only possible but probable that this is a literal narcostate.
At some point, it becomes war. The criminals are sufficiently organized that they should be treated as enemy combatants and gunned down on sight. Trump ordering US ships to nuke drug boats out of existence is the correct course of action. The only problem is the "civilized" people who cry about it instead of thanking him for his service and thanking god they have people willing to commit extreme violence against others in order to protect them from the evils of this world. That is a luxury I would love to have myself. Instead I live in a extremely leftist country where drug traffickers spray paint threats on people's homes, giving them 24 hours to leave on pain of death.
I do believe your assertion is correct that literal war would probably be better than the status quo, but regulating powerful drugs as basically "sell to adults and it needs to meet some sort of purity standard" would bring the drug trafficking portion of gangs into looking more like Petrobas than Comando Vermelho.
(1) Absolute war against drug traffickers
(2) Full legalization
(3) status quo
I'd rank (3) as the absolute worst. I don't see (1) nor (2) as avoiding crime and infliction upon innocents, though, rather choosing which lesser poison to pick.
I claim that the drug gangs have launched a stealthy secession. They have gotten sufficiently organized that they have laws, tribunals, taxes and territory. Is gang territory really brazilian territory? I don't think so. In such areas police is executed on sight, like enemy combatants. The brazilian government is not really there guaranteeing any of your so called rights. So are you really a brazilian citizen if you live in gang territory? Don't think so. These drug gangs have formed a government so barbarous they kill you if you don't pay your taxes.
When São Paulo tried to secede last century, war was declared and they were massacred. So why are these gangs tolerated? It's just a completely stupid status quo. This government needs to recognize the gravity of the situation and react accordingly. Instead the government and the gangs are merging into one.
What are the effects you predict would happen if drugs were legalized, therefore eliminating most of the profits of drug traffickers, and simultaneously declaring war on the groups controlling seceded territory?
What's your calculus on the over under of fighting a war against drug-funded vs non-funded drug traffickers? I'm willing to take at face that they are de facto seceded and have already started a war, but I don't see how it can exclude (2) since even if you defeated them there would still be yet the same underlying incentives and the seceding drug traffickers could emerge again.
Legalization will wipe out the drug gang operations due to simple economics. I don't think criminals can compete with actual pharmaceutical laboratories operating in the clear. Drugs would be cheaper and higher quality. In fact I seriously doubt drug gangs would support legalization of drugs. It would destroy their ridiculously high profitability. Their prices would be squeezed. They'd have to compete on quality and price. They wouldn't be able to eliminate the competition, impose cartels and control prices. Drug companies get rich due to patents which are government-granted monopolies, once they expire it's a literal race to the bottom, you actually need regulation in order to protect consumers. Some drugs actually disappear from the market because they are too cheap to be profitable.
Drug gangs are the career path of the favela denizens. Drug operations have lots of "employees" and they pay ridiculously well. Wiping them out via economic or military means will also wipe out all of those "jobs". It will do nothing to solve the underlying problem of a poor and disenfranchised people forgotten by society. They're likely to turn to other forms of crime if society doesn't integrate them, and it probably won't.
The hope is that whatever criminal activity they turn to will not be as profitable as the drug trade. Robbery isn't that big a problem in the grand scheme of things, drug gangs moving billions and billions of dollars absolutely is. All wars come down to money. Make enough money and you can have better equipment than police, militaries. You can raise armies, just like the middle ages. You can hire actual professional soldiers to train your men. Crime that's too profitable is literally a matter of war. Common criminals are a thorn on our side but in the grand scheme of things they are mere nuisances. Well-funded criminals are an existential threat for civilized society.
War on these groups would require enormous political capital. Television networks would probably have to spend years manufacturing consent for it. The fact is left has infiltrated the entire country and they practically worship these "victims of society". Literally days ago we were forced to listen to our president say that drug traffickers are victims of their consumers. I have no idea what it takes to reverse this sort of brainwashing but whatever it is we'll need lots of it.
If by some miracle the military is deployed against the drug gangs, the gangs will be routed. It's happened before and will happen again. Drug gangs do not have the training, the discipline, the sheer organization required to stand up to actual armed forces. Even our pathetic military has managed to prevail against them. It's the politicians who get in the way. There's no point in "pacifying" an area and then retreating from it, thereby allowing the enemy to occupy it again.
Believe me, there are a large number of countries where, if someone was shot for standing up to a crime, it would be national news for months. Not in the Americas, obviously, but they exist.
The drug war is the stupidest thing humans have ever done. It literally fuels the criminals, and even entire criminal states like north Korea. State illegalisaion (mostly the US) of drugs is to put guns right into the hands of gangs and create competing states. Drugs should both be 100% legal - so they cost the same as sugar, gutting the money that empowers the gangs - and simultaneously drug users should be pushed to the edges of society with wide open discrimination.
I have stopped bike thieves, car break-ins, and harassment in multiple cities in North America. I have stopped a racist situation escalating into an attack on a subway in Rotterdam, and stopped a pickpocket in Barcelona. I have shooed away people clearly up to no good in Central and South America. Certainly there was the possibility of violence, but the worst of it in reality was criminals cussing at me as they retreated.
If you don't feel comfortable with direct confrontation, something as simple as yelling "I already called the cops" has worked, or you know, actually calling the cops is an option.
I'm well aware that there are parts of the world where intervening will get you into trouble (and have been in situations where I have held back), but I also believe pretty strongly that doing the right thing is a virtuous feedback loop, and the risks do not outweigh the benefits.
I don't want to live in a world where good people won't do the right thing out of fear. So I choose not to live in that world by being a good person that does the right thing.
You clearly have more street smarts than the average person. The average person doesn't know when to hold back. They will say and do dumb things, and they will be killed.
There are examples right there in your comment.
> the worst of it in reality was criminals cussing at me as they retreated
You allowed them to leave even though they were insulting you, thereby avoiding violence.
Plenty of people out there who would do the opposite of what you did: they'd go out of their way to insult and humiliate the criminals as they were leaving. "Teach them a lesson", as they say. This can easily escalate the situation into lethal force.
If you insult a man in front of his peers, tell him he's a pussy right in front of his friends, you almost leave him no choice but to come back and escalate just to prove you wrong. It seems obvious but there's plenty of people out there who have died over disrespect.
> something as simple as yelling "I already called the cops"
You were smart enough to back up your threat before confronting the criminals.
Plenty of people out there who threaten the criminal with the 911 call itself. "Stop or I'll call the cops". Not only is it a direct challenge to the criminal, it also provides them with the solution to their problem: kill the guy and he won't call the cops.
It all seems obvious when we're academically discussing this stuff here but in a rapidly escalating, potentially violent situation where emotions and adrenaline are running high, people will do and say all kinds of stupid shit. And they are going to die for it.
Thief only faces lukewarm prospects at prosecution, and moves around from address to address, and stranger-on-stranger homicide conviction rate in places like Chicago well below 50%. Honest citizen has mortgage, child in school ,and a day job, very easy for police to fuck with them if they dare fight back, which makes criminals even more violent and bold as they rely on many of them overwhelming the tiny minority that will fight back.
All of civilization exists due to the threat of violence. There's no need to negotiate peacefully when you can just take what you want. It's the violence that makes it happen. Negotiate, because if you don't there's no telling who's gonna be left standing.
If people are breaking locks and stealing property in plain sight right in front of other people, it's because they think society has become so soft they won't do anything about it.
And frankly, the average person won't. They'll probably just stand there shocked at the event unfolding before them. Or they'll try to "stand up" to the criminal, only to end up insulting his masculinity or something, thereby getting themselves killed for the insult. Yes, criminals kill people who disrespect them.
If you're gonna do this, you have to be prepared to use lethal force against another human being. The vast majority of people are not. They're better off calling the cops, whose entire purpose is to be that person.
Many people, me included, would gladly do that, if they were allowed to. The problem is that when dust settle, the criminal will remain a criminal with one more record in his file, but the whole legal system will steamroll me if I don't precisely calculate force in split second and apply 3N more than absolute necessary minimum.
Here in Canada there were cases when people defended themselves and ended up in legal kafkaesque hell, imposed by country. Even after acquitted of all charges, they would spend lifetime savings, lose jobs and actually have to rebuilt their lives from almost zero.
We voted for all of this and I don't understand how it happened. Aliens dispersed something so we all became that stupid?
Doubt. Many people certainly think they would. In a real situation, they'd hesitate.
I don't even mean that in a disrespectful way. Taking lives traumatizes professional soldiers. It has enormous psychological costs. If you do it, you will live with it until the end of your days.
I'm not speaking out against guns and self-defense either. Better to be traumatized than dead. Weapons are a requirement for basic human dignity. Just pointing out the fact that it's not that simple.
> Here in Canada there were cases when people defended themselves and ended up in legal kafkaesque hell, imposed by country.
My country is the same. The absurdities produced by the "justice" system are maddening.
I remember one case where a person had his house burglarized dozens of times. The "justice" system didn't do shit about it. He got so fed up he booby trapped his own home and killed the criminal when he tried to victimize him again. Suddenly police, prosecutors and judges found the will to act and vigorously condemned him for cold blooded murder. It's the kind of thing that makes me wish a meteor would strike this country and reset it back to the stone age.
As for why it happens... I've thought about it for way too long and I don't have a definitive answer for you. I think it's because people want to prevent the abyss from gazing into them as they combat the darkness. My conclusion is that we should have some very dark people of our own, pointed right at the abyss, perpetually staring it down into submission.
The tracer rounds flying at the enemy at night, absolutely exquisite, brings a joy like the 4th of July.
I suspect, somewhere in brazil, there is a group of people that have adopted the practices of the drug traffickers of soft secession, but actually do it for a righteous cause, and are getting away with it, as long as they are not too noisy about it. They have learned the tactics work, and rather than trying a seemingly futile effort to steer the government in their favor they ultimately likely came to the same conclusions as the drug traffickers as to how to gain control of their community and perhaps even their own lives.
Rio de Janeiro is in a state akin to civil war literally right now. Apparently the drug gangs have discovered drones. They're using drones to drop grenades on top of each other and on top of police. Nearly a hundred dead as of right now.
Check out this war zone:
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/sudeste/rj/operacao-no...
I don't even know what to say anymore. I'm just... Tired.
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)
This even works with bigger padlocks, you just need two really big wrenches and a buddy to help you.
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?
Ring locks suck, a lot of them can be defeated with a pair of scissors. Similarly, U-locks suck because they're never as strong as the bike frame. You can just pick up the bike and use the frame as lever and the streetlight pole as fulcrum, twisting the bike around until the locking notches of the U-lock snap.
Occasionally, in The Netherlands professional bike thieves will drive up with a stolen van at night and load up entire bike racks. Not much you can do against that except store your bike inside.
Funny side note, the cops actually offered to let me setup the sting, make contact with the thief and pose as a buyer. I was sure they’d sternly recommend I do not get involved, so I was very surprised, but it was a busy night when I called and they had no officers immediately available. I did make online contact, but due to delays setting up the meet, the cops ended up handling it without me, and when I went to pick it up they were rightfully very proud of catching the guy and being able to return the bike to me.
So I did that, showed up. No other people there. Person behind the counter told me they were too busy, and I'd have to show up some other (unspecified) day.
So yeah, I'd like to trade PDs with ya.
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.
Barbed wire doesn't work for humans, especially humans who have some familiarity with it.
Same with most locking mechanisms.
Or, more realistically, to convince an insurer that we've made a token effort to keep them out.
The lock is there to keep the honest people out AND leave a trace that someone came in forcibly when they want to do so.
Which is why stuff like bump keying those stupid flat-keyed American locks is so scary because it requires almost zero skill and leaves very little traces.
Unless an expert takes apart the lock investigating for traces, there's no way to tell it was opened without a key.
1. You (or someone else) gives enough of a crap to be doing forensics about how a lock was circumvented.
2. You clearly care so much about security to do those forensics, but not enough to, I don't know, install a camera?
Will an insurer, or a cop that you're making a police report to actually physically check if the lock was shimmed?
Worth it for smarter crooks. I'm a former IBEW electrician, and I've seen both stranger and more-miraculous occurrences — but I've seen it all.
[0] https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/H-10011/Tool-Storage/Kn...
The stuff you actually witnessed on both types of jobsites often isn't believable. But I've seen [your comment] many times, in the middle of nowhere, with trailcams rolling and tweekers not giving AF, smiling as they roll away with your belongings...
----
We caught a burglar once in our wire warehouse... huffing our marking paint, but on his way to scoring a five-figure copper haul. As foreman, I had to pull a few of my electricians off of the young man (~20~white~highAF) — I sent my guys to their jobsites, keeping myself and two larger others to detain the guy until the police arrived: arrested. Drawn out court proceedings 5x. Dismissed =( "Adjudicated"
That little twerp ended up having already become a career criminal, at just two decades on this earth. He needed good guys like mine to beat his ass a few times, like his family never did the favor of helping him learn.
Next time my guys will not be calling the police, with blessings.
The solution in the east bay seems to be “don’t use a valuable bike”
If you make too much noise people will get suspicious and might call the police.
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...
I'll have to keep my eye out for the Home Depot buy a battery and get a free tool deal on those.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
This is why I don't like such black-and-white opinions... I think the answer is rarely so simple.
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.
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!
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.
> Low-intelligence people are masters of black-and-white thinking. It's also part of a psychological defense mechanism called "splitting."
> They only seem to think in terms of opposites, ignoring the grey areas in between. Reality is too complex to be interpreted only in opposites.
> As a result, they tend to simplify everything. While simplification is useful sometimes, not everything can, or should be, simplified. Knowing what does and doesn’t require simplification signals high intelligence.
The problem is when you speak in absolutes while simultaneously "not meaning it" that way, is that this is not conveyed to the people you are speaking to, so we can only assume that you did mean it, and now we think you're being unreasonably generalizing.
And I think it's pretty hard to have a useful conversation if we cannot use agreed upon terms to convey what we mean. If you know that not everyone will understand your intention by saying it that way, then why do it?
They might say "hick" if they're from rural northern New England, the upper midwest, rural Canada, or Cascadia, usually with self-deprecating facetiousness. Most of these people are smart enough to do whatever they want in life, but just choose to live by their standard of normalcy and just like their friendly small towns best.
If they are from the lower midwest or south, they will sure as hell just say "redneck", and most take it as a compliment even though many of them deep down are just compensating because they don't have any other options.
But nobody calls themselves "working class". Not in the rust belt, not in the rural midwest, and not in the south. That's more of a politician's word, and a condescending slur from the white collar crowd that usually ends in a broken jaw.
That's when you add a clipboard and/or hardhat to increase odds.
It's still online: https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/anarchy_and_privacy_contro...
Thanks for unlocking this memory for me!
If you were stealing from a job site you'd just bring bolt cutters.
It is impossible to attack the shackle, due to the recessed nature of the locking mechanisms. A torch might work... blasting out the keyway.
But on IBEW jobsites each lockbox contains around $10,000 of tools, within; most thefts are from other on-site trades, and lock-picking means you can blame it on the electricians since there's no signs of forced entry (I'm sure some of the apprentices do steal, particularly the lowly-compensated first semester "greenies").
But the electricians are still paying for it.
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.
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.
I wonder if anybody tried suing him…
I kinda want tvtropes to put a name on his slapstick humor. It's like looking over the shoulder of that weird uncle that seems to live in an entirely different world.
What's the non-coincidence?
So no matter what I would expect LPL would get someone he knew/equivalent to take the case.
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.
Point is, gun control has led to a reduction in gun crime in every country I know of. Thats hard evidence against your qippy one-liner.
Incidentally, a few years later a certain political party got their candidate elected Chancellor. He more or less immediately ordered the police to use the gun-licensing records to identify Jews who owned guns and had them arrested. It’s actually pretty hilarious, in a very dark way, to read some of the arrest reports. When Jews were ordered to surrender their weapons to the police, many of them brought the weapons to a police station as instructed. They politely stood in line while the officer at the desk wrote out arrest warrants for them one after the other. The crime? Carrying an unlicensed weapon. The location? The police station in such-and-such precinct. The witness? The officer at the desk. The prisoner? Turned over to the SS.
lets not pretend.
So then non criminals, while not armed with guns, face no real gun violence because even getting access to guns requires critical thinking and intelligence at least sufficient to understand risk vs reward well enough to understand civilian pop isn't a reasonable use case for firearms. Any firearm related incident here is a multi week news item. Stuff thats everyday in the USA and doesnt even make local news.
So, our cops and our criminals are armed, and i can trust my kids wont get shot up in school, i wont get shot in a store robbery, or by a disgruntled coworker etc.
You dont quite understand how bad it is I think, USA americans who move here have an adjustment period and usually need mental health support coping with leaving a country where getting shot in a road rage incident, for example, is a real risk. I had a colleague driving break down after cutting someone off accidentally, the cut off swerved ahead of us aggressivly stopped traffic got out and started shouting. Eventually wore themsleves out, as they do, got vack in car and kept driving. Didnt stress me too bad but my coworker driving totally shut down. Why? A year earlier a coworker in the USA did something similar and the person with road rage got out and started shooting at their car.
That's not normal. Not even close.
That's the key right there. USA enforcement is far less than what it needs to be, especially in (dare I say it) Democrat-controlled local districts.
The number of soft-on-crime DAs elected has increased significantly in the last 30 years, and the fraction of violent crime cases that are left unsolved has also increased significantly.
It's gotten so bad that a lot of conspiracy theories are circulating, like "Davos people want to destabilize the US, so George Soros is donating millions through his Open Foundation to soft-on-crime DA local election campaigns."
I don't want to live in a world where cops can stop people for speeding and use it as probable cause to search my car.
I also don't want to live in an environment where when I'm seconds away from danger, my only protection is minutes away.
Warren v. DC also clearly established that police departments cannot be held civilly liable for even gross negligence of duty.
"You can all go to hell. I'm going to Texas."
-Davy Crockett
so if its about safety, in a country actively descended into facism, aren't you worried about freedom of political expression given you can just be gunned down at a moments notice and it gets brushed away?
I can guarantee you that those "backwards" wheat farmers from Salina, KS with $10k worth of hunting rifles and shotguns just don't think about people like you on a daily basis. Their minds are on the wind, rain, beetles, and grain futures, not "how can we launch a successful invasion against Somerville, MA?".
Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about my Greek classmate being assaulted by a "Free Palestine" moron who can't tell the difference between the flags for Israel and Greece:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14004125/TikTok-Gre...
As for mob violence in general, I'm just not worried about complete strangers wanting to risk their lives in a firefight to kill me. The kind of people who are attracted to angry mobs are not the kind of people volunteering to drive the Waffen SS out of Eindhoven or chase the Japanese out of the Philippines.
Likewise, the people violently assaulting Jewish pre-med students in America are there because the IDF in Gaza scare them.
If the kind of people you most fear and hate wanted war, they could just stop growing your food and let you starve to death.
Not trying to belittle you, so much as reassure that if Trump supporters really wanted to hurt you, they would have done it already in 2015.
That's a tautology - of course it did. The real questions are - what percentage of violent crimes were committed with guns after after gun control, how much did overall violent crime decrease after gun control, and to what extent was gun control provably responsible for the reduction of violent crime (when statistically controlling for other factors that reduce violent crime)?
The overall slope of the violent crime curve has been negative, but the value may have been more negative if it were not for gun control.
Also, I think history will bear this out in the coming centuries -- totalitarianism and terrorism can flourish far better when citizens are unarmed.
besides, the usa has proven that freedom to access guns doesnt protect you from dictatorships / authoritarian governments. That was the main stated constitutional reason for having that right.
So the USA hasn't seen any benefits from free gun access ans has lost uncountbaly many lives to death and trauma. How is it still justified?
FTFY
He has very carefully rehearsed a lot of situations in his mind, and I'm confident he would only draw his weapon when actual lives are in imminent danger (like an active armed assailant situation).
A chem lab staffed only by trained professionals is still a lot more dangerous than an indoor range in a red state. A firearm in Cletus' hands is a lot safer than a beaker of sulfuric acid in anybody's hands, let alone piranha solution.
And all of that is nothing compared to the danger of being on a road with other cars, many of which are operated by people who simply do not give a f***.
But the root public policy problem is the same no matter what the weapon is: violent criminals will harm people, others generally won't. So the most effective policies have to lean heavily on good police and DA behavior, to make sure violent criminals aren't able to keep harming people. Going after the weapons criminals use is effectively a red herring if known violent criminals are still generally at large. Any policy intended to reduce violent crime will fail insofar as cases continue to go unsolved, and police, DAs, and courts don't enforce the law when the identities of violent criminals are known.
I can hold a 18v grinder with a cutoff wheel just fine though, I lost the keys to one of those kryptonite locks on my bike and I was riding my bike again 30 seconds later.
After going over https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seksuele_volkstaal_en_eufemism... it seems that “bever” is apparently also used as euphemism. As is “floppy drive” TIL!
Yeah, one of my conclusions after years of watching LPL is ironically to start buying cheaper locks.
The difference between a $3 and a $300 lock is just about a minute of time for an experienced lockpick. No lock is capable of dissuading a determined thief, but any lock is equally capable of dissuading a lazy one.
Most other security for locks I've seen could be defeated with 60 seconds and a 3" cutoff tool that fits in a pocket.
When all else fails, drummers are the best security anyway: https://loudwire.com/sleeping-drummer-stops-band-trailer-the...
The other side is "career" thieves will know how to pop-can shim a lock but most of them are not going to use or break out a set of picks. One main reason it's an additional felony charge if you get caught using them. So a _slightly_ better lock is sometimes warranted for outdoor applications.
The final piece is they'll just steal a car and then drive that car through your shop front to get what they want. Up here in Northern California a gang pulled off the same heist as the movie "Casino." They drove a van up to a wall and then knocked out a small segment of the wall to gain entry.
How about non-experienced lockpick? Or the one who gonna brute force everything? I think there's value is expensive lock (Assume you buy the high quality one, not the over-price one)
Or in the case of targets with no neighbors like missile bases, you know approximately how long it might take an attacker to succeed, then put big guys with guns within that distance measured by time.
So I just fot a cheap wire combination lock, just so you can't just jump in the bike and ride away.
What I've been using for years is a heavy chain with a lock (disc-detainer style). The chain weighs around 3.5kg. You can of course cut it with an angle grinder, but have you ever tried cutting a chain with an angle grinder without a vise? The chain slips away and it's really difficult to hold it in place for the cutting, which would take more than a minute.
All those Kryptonite-style U-locks have the disadvantage of being easily fixed in place for the cutting. They are also useless for attaching your bike to large trees, street lights, etc.
Remember that if a bear is chasing you, you don't have to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun your friends. If there are 4 bikes and my bike is the most difficult to steal, I'm fine.
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).
In high school I didn't even have lockpicks, I just carried a super tiny pair of needle-nose pliers along with some other tools in my Five-Star zipper binder, and the tips of the pliers were fine enough to stab into the holes of those stupid snake-bite security screws that held down the thermostat covers in the classrooms.
Once teachers realized I could open the thermostat covers and adjust their setting in seconds instead of the hours it took to go the official route, not only was I very popular, they would occasionally send hall passes to summon me from other rooms to perform the service. I was doing fine in my studies and this was not an academic impediment, it was just hilarious. Eventually I just started leaving the covers loose, a fig-leaf that the custodial staff seemed content to ignore.
...
Fastforward a few years into my career, still not carrying lockpicks, but much more familiar with the art. A shipment of cabinetized network hardware arrived, but the cabinet keys were not ziptied to the doors as was customary. The installers were looking at having to go home with a short timesheet because they couldn't work.
I was in the NOC for another reason entirely, but I asked the supe to cover me for a minute and trotted out to the equipment room. I swiped a couple pins from the corkboard (for some reason, the office used dissection T-pins instead of regular pushpins), bent the tip of one, used the other as a turning tool, and proceeded to rake open one of the cabinets. The install crew lead's jaw hit the floor. I insisted on teaching him to do the rest, and moments later not only had he opened the rest of the cabinet doors, he had scared himself with how easy that just was, and stood in silence for a minute, shocked by his newly-acquired skill.
The ethic, IIRC, is that you only pick locks that you own, or that you have permission to pick.
Also, maybe the groundskeeper knows things about groundskeeping that you don't, on account of how much time they spend doing their job, which is keeping the grounds.
Luckily, she used the shitty round lock that a lot of storage companies recommend. I was able to pick it in just a couple minutes. Someone like LPL would have had it open in mere seconds.
My bad though, LPL did warn about this.
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.
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
Oddly, this is a case where they would have had plenty of time to pick the lock as well, and it would have been much quieter.
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.
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.
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.
People with that kind of dedication can often find gainful employment :)
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).
I have a vehicle that is extremely simple to steal (you can unlock everything with a screwdriver), to protect it I use both a pedal lock, a secret second key and a steering wheel lock.
Will it defeat a determined thief or a team of thieves? No way. However it will put off most opportunists and slow down a more experienced thief enough that they may choose another target.
I object to the word overpriced in this context. It costs a lot of money to keep locks, tools, and other spare parts in a vehicle (including the cost of the vehicle). If you need a lock now and they have one it should cost a lot more than if you need a lock in 6 months and can wait for the factory to get around to making it. When you call their locks overpriced you are failing to understand the costs and value of having a part on hand.
Maybe some of them are selling normal-price locks, but people don't call a locksmith to drill out their lock when they can borrow their neighbor's drill.
They either can't pick an easy lock or they're scamming people.
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...
Big Lock needs to be taken to task…
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).
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 Citroën 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.
Wow, that sounds like a pretty secure entry! I wonder how they secured the walls, that’s a lot of steel plate, enough to require structural reinforc—
> 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.
Haha, that was my guess. This is like constructing a safe with a super heavy reinforced steel door on the front and construction paper on the sides and top! He could’ve kicked his way through 5/8” (prolly 16mm to you lot) drywall ;) Your solution was a lot cleaner and you earned that tasty reward!
Turns out watching Pirates of the Caribbean wasn’t a waste of time after all. ;)
One of the XMs was the 3-litre 24-valve one which would sit comfortably at twice the legal limit, with the only real difference being the stereo had to be a couple of notches louder and the trees and road signs came up twice as fast. Oh, and the trip computer showed an astounding 8MPG - you wouldn't be doing 147mph for long because you've got less than an hour of fuel in the tank at that speed.
The AX GT was the carby one, basically their 950cc hatchback with the 1.4 out of a BX dropped in and a lumpy cam and twin-choke 2x32mm Weber carb. It was a little pocket-size tin of hooliganism.
The CXes were probably the most refined of the lot. Look up DIRAVI steering - fully powered, no mechanical connection between the steering wheel and road wheels when it's working normally.
The suspension has no springs or shock absorbers - there's a "sphere" screwed into the end of each suspension cylinder with a bubble of nitrogen trapped by a rubber sheet that acts as a spring, and a set of spring-loaded valves kind of like the ones in a shock absorber piston to set the damping rate.
For the brakes, the hydraulic pump fed the ABS block through a shuttle valve under the pedal. When you press the pedal it does not move! Or, hardly at all. I takes a little getting used to and the brakes feel really harsh until you realise you don't need to welly it down hard - just gently touch it. The back brakes use pressure from the rear suspension, so they're more effective the heavier the car is.
The steering is amazing. When the engine is running the road wheels and steering wheel are not really connected. There's a linkage through a shuttle valve and when you turn the steering wheel it acts as a servo, with the wheels being moved entirely by hydraulic pressure. The Danfoss valves in normal power steering systems work a bit like this but they use a bendy spring, and the hydraulics only "help".
To make it respond properly at speed there was a heart-shaped cam in the steering box, with a sprung piston pushed into it by hydraulic pressure from a speed governor on the gearbox. The faster you go, the more pressure on the piston, and the harder the spring presses a roller into the cam. At idle with the car stationary you can move the steering wheel and it'll spring back to the middle by itself, and at 70mph you can barely move the steering wheel at all.
It's really sensitive and the first time you drive one you find yourself zig-zagging down the road until you get used to just leaving your fingertips on the rim of the wheel and basically just touching the side you want it to turn to.
They're not terribly fast but you can gobble up the miles surprisingly quickly, and I've never driven anything where you arrived so relaxed.
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.
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.
Story time: There was a serial killer in CA a few decades ago. The police mentioned he doesn't attack homes with dogs, next victim had a small dog. Next the police mentioned he doesn't attack homes with medium or large dogs, next victim had a 30lb dog. Next the police mentioned he doesn't attack homes with large dogs. His next victim didn't have a dog. If its 80+lbs, very few people will mess with them and they will love you forever.
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.
Regarding dogs: some organophosphate mixed into minced meat and lobbed through your fence/gate/open window is an instant and quiet way to get rid of a dog - personal experience taught me this lesson.
The analogy is probably closer to someone entering your home by pushing the doorframe open so that the door opens without unlocking the lock, or that many automatic doors can be opened by spraying some compressed air through a thin sliver, triggering the internal door sensors. Both are feasible in practice, leave little evidence behind if done well, and do actually surprise a lot of people.
For example you can get a filing cabinet which has a lock and a counter that ticks every time it is opened. You pair it with a clipboard where you note the counter count, why you opened it and sign.
It can be picked, that can't be avoided. But the act of opening it creates a trail which can be detected. Adding a false clipboard entry is detected by subsequent users, there typically aren't many people with access.
Determining that you have a breach allows it to be investigated, mitigated. The lock is an important part of that, but it isn't perfectly secure so you manage that flaw.
Of course filing cabinets are getting rare and replaced by digital document stores, with their own auditing and issues.
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.
I think it's a pretty good endorsement for Abloy.
Can't be stuck if it's runny.
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.
Many locks fail quickly with just an angle grinder and a cut-off wheel. (as you can see on Storage Wars)
Every lock I've been unable to pick (usually due to the fact that it's a pile of rust) has been susceptible to bolt-cutters. Big lock? Bigger cutters. Still cheaper than an angle-grinder.
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.
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.
Virtually any lock can be destroyed with tools and most doors/walls can be busted through with enough effort and equipment. I think the airport police would notice that, though ;)
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.
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.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/f...
According to legend, a wench can destroy a whole city state (Troy)!
Is that because it’s not actually in Fort Knox? :P
You need to be more specific with what "truly secure" means.
If I use my pretend upper well-to-do white guy rhetoric with precise and deep vocabulary, I can make claims with a lower likelihood someone will challenge it, even if they are equally well backed.
For those interested in the actual case, here's some deeper coverage of this bruhaha including how Lee may have perjured himself during deposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NadPAE6BDbA
It is interesting to see that these companies still don't know about the Streisand Effect or they choose to think that it won't happen to them.
> The strange thing about the whole situation is that Proven actually knew how to respond constructively to the first McNally video. Its own response video opened with a bit of humor (the presenter drinks a can of Liquid Death), acknowledged the issue (“we’ve had a little bit of controversy in the last couple days”), and made clear that Proven could handle criticism (“we aren’t afraid of a little bit of feedback”).
> The video went on to show how their locks work and provided some context on shimming attacks and their likelihood of real-world use. It ended by showing how users concerned about shimming attacks could choose more expensive but more secure lock cores that should resist the technique.
Sounds to me like someone professional in the company with a cooler head was on this and was handling it well, but someone else higher up got angry and aggressive and decided that revenge was more important.
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).
(for those missing out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...)
But that was in a pre-DMCA world, before the anti-circumvention provisions gave these companies more legal weapons to criminalize fair use and competition.
How so? And what region are you referring to? There are many countries in the world with vastly different laws.
So, you are right, the laws in Micronesia, Palau and South Sudan might be vastly different.
Don't you live in a good neighborhood?
But where will you park your car when you go to work? You have to lock it.
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.
Some people always go too far, undermining the good cause of the others
Don't challenge people. Don't insult people. Don't humiliate people. Don't threaten people. Allow them to maintain their self-respect even when they lose. Don't rub it in. Give them a face-saving exit.
Plenty of violence and aggression is caused by violation of the above rules. They seem simple but they're broken on a daily basis. Famous last words: "you don't have the guts".
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industr...
Is it the job of an in-house lawyer (or any lawyer) to say that this appears to be a vexatious or SLAPP case, and the client should not pursue it?
Is there an ethical obligation not to get involved in a case that you know is being prosecuted in bad faith?
The bar there is very high. This case might be embarrassing but probably isn’t sanctionable. And the only lawyer that would get sanctioned would be the ones that signed the papers not the drone that hired them.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3WVme9LAcQ&list=PLo0bMOObfk...
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.
So yeah, reality is liberal nowadays
That their marketing is so edgy is just fun. I don't take it seriously, and it doesn't seem like they do either.
But Proven is definitely full of toxic masculinity internet tough guys.
That is strange. Water is water. Delicious water. Expensive water. Filter?
And let's be real. Most people probably aren't drinking enough water. If flavored water gets them to consume more water and less sugary soda then I consider it an absolute win.
It still feels wrong to me, but that's how it is.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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...
And as a side note: sue the hell out of the hypothetical nurse spilling the beans on a hypothetical AIDE patient. Why? Because if you don’t, then other people who suspect they might have HIV are going to avoid going to the doctor, resulting in more deaths for them and their lovers.
In any case I wasn't arguing for or against regulating factual speech. Only pointing out that it is done in the USA. This seems to get peoples feathers real ruffled, for whatever reason.
It’s like the medical version of a sovereign citizen legal theory, where it simultaneously applies to everything and nothing, depending on what’s most convenient at the moment.
I was a licensed healthcare professional and even I was shocked when my medical information was given to police without a warrant, a legal arrest, and without my consent. As it turns out, totally legal.
But I remembered that friend's locker (he was on holidays then) used US police code for murder. (Police in US use codes for crimes when communicating on the radio).
I googled the code, used friend's locker for the day, and by lunch the next day I've bruteforced through enough codes to learn that my code was the embarrassing 420.
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.
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.
Just like the fact we have agreed upon rules against using chemical weapons or attacking civilians in war (which some violate), the fact something is possible doesn’t mean society should accept it.
If we don’t have even the basic civility of not getting death threats over whatever minor thing someone on the internet is mad at, even mixing us up with their real target sharing our name, what’s left?
Everything becomes full force win at all costs, no matter how stupid or trivial. Who wants to live like that?
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?
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
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
You'd better have a slam-dunk of a case if you're going to easily find contingency lawyers. The worst thing you can be is just "too rich" to qualify for pro bono representation... but even then, you still need a slam-dunk case.
I am currently in the process of suing somebody (plaintiff), for the first time in my many decades, and am a semi-retired electrician of average savings... and it is expensive and probably not worth my time but (in theory) hopefully worth it on principle.
So ready for this to be over with; the lawyers will certainly get their$.
Sounds like a CivPro hypothetical exam question that would give law students nightmares.
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.
Another way of responding to this is… to improve the lock?
Could even explore a positive collaborative social media campaign promoting the new lock.
Ship has sailed now…
There are cheaper locks if you don't care to defend against shimming.
Guess ML realizes it’s best to be humiliated online where a small subset of population would never buy their products anyways. Rather than humiliate themselves in public like Proven Industries did (Barbara Streisand effect?)
That’s are exactly the people who usually break locks. All others fail on simple locks too.
Gotta admit its entertaining, though.
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.
Thanks for answering this FAQ.
Businesses don't have to delude themselves to succeed either.
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.
God Bless McNally
I'd buy it.
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.