The trials of the Capitol assaulters

[Patooka]

"What's the point in buying a safe if the people who sell you the safe can give other people the code to the safe?"

This seems, on the face of it, to be a fair question.

I'm pretty certain the cops are gonna open up your safe one way or the other. Whether it remains a functional safe afterwards though...

 

[James Brown]

That's why I named my dog "2@AKM!GQJSrdwZ8", so that I can remember my passwords better.

 

[Elixir]

Wait—I’m not supposed to use my dog’s name?

You can borrow my dog’s name if you like.
It’s “wOnDEr8$5^%9 (last 6 characters are silent)
JB’s dog’s name "2@AKM!GQJSrdwZ8" is public knowledge on all the hacker sites.

 

[crazyfingers]

Wait—I’m not supposed to use my dog’s name?

You can borrow my dog’s name if you like.
It’s “wOnDEr8$5^%9 (last 6 characters are silent)
JB’s dog’s name "2@AKM!GQJSrdwZ8" is public knowledge on all the hacker sites.

That's a stupid name for a dog.

 

[Elixir]

Wait—I’m not supposed to use my dog’s name?

You can borrow my dog’s name if you like.
It’s “wOnDEr8$5^%9 (last 6 characters are silent)
JB’s dog’s name "2@AKM!GQJSrdwZ8" is public knowledge on all the hacker sites.

That's a stupid name for a dog.

Those are the first ones they guess!

 

[James Brown]

Wait—I’m not supposed to use my dog’s name?

You can borrow my dog’s name if you like.
It’s “wOnDEr8$5^%9 (last 6 characters are silent)
JB’s dog’s name "2@AKM!GQJSrdwZ8" is public knowledge on all the hacker sites.

That's a stupid name for a dog.

Well, to be fair, he is a stupid dog.

 

[Shadowy Man]

"What's the point in buying a safe if the people who sell you the safe can give other people the code to the safe?"

This seems, on the face of it, to be a fair question.

It's also a very dated question, the answer to which is itself a question:

What kind of idiot would buy a safe and then not immediately change the code to something only they themselves know?

Yes, indeed, one should change it.

Any security system that can be (non destructively) opened by its manufacturer (or anyone else who isn't provided with the code/combination/key by its owner) isn't a security system.

Agreed, which is what prompted my comment.

Getting angry at the manufacturer for giving the default code to the cops, is like using your dog's name as your internet banking password, and then getting mad at your dog when someone cleans out your account.

Of course, if there's a "master code" that cannot be changed, and that the manufacturer can use to open any of their safes, then no sensible person should ever buy their product.

The approach would be: cops obtain probably cause for search warrant of your safe. show you search warrant and command you to open the safe. if you don't open it they jail you for failure to comply with the search warrant.

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

 

[TomC]

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

I don't see it that way.
Having a combination that protects dangerous objects from thieves and such makes perfect sense.
Protecting you from investigations for your own criminal behavior not so much.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

I don't see it that way.
Having a combination that protects dangerous objects from thieves and such makes perfect sense.
Protecting you from investigations for your own criminal behavior not so much.
Tom

Then you believe in a slightly less free society than I do. To each their own.

 

[TomC]

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

I don't see it that way.
Having a combination that protects dangerous objects from thieves and such makes perfect sense.
Protecting you from investigations for your own criminal behavior not so much.
Tom

Then you believe in a slightly less free society than I do. To each their own.

And you believe in a slightly more violent society.
To each their own.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

I agree with the comment above that it’s moot, really. They WILL get into the safe. The combo allows you to still have it after they are done.

 

[bilby]

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

I don't see it that way.
Having a combination that protects dangerous objects from thieves and such makes perfect sense.
Protecting you from investigations for your own criminal behavior not so much.
Tom

The two objectives aren't compatible.

If anyone knows your combination number/password, other than you yourself, then your security is compromised.

If the police can obtain your credentials, then potentially so can the guy who has a night job as a janitor at the police department. If the safe manufacturers have a master code, then potentially so does everyone who ever worked at that company.

Either only you know; Or anyone who wants to know, can find out.

 

[bilby]

I agree with the comment above that it’s moot, really. They WILL get into the safe. The combo allows you to still have it after they are done.

And that's a choice for the owner of the safe to make.

The worrying thing to me isn't that the police are able to get a warrant and open the safe; It's that if the safe can be non-destructively opened by someone other than its owner or someone he has explicitly decided to give access to, (including the police, or even its manufacturer), then it was never secure to begin with, and all safes of that type are, in fact, unsafe.

 

[TomC]

The two objectives aren't compatible.

Nor are they mutually exclusive.

If the police can obtain your credentials, then potentially so can the guy who has a night job as a janitor at the police department.

Nevertheless, having more safeguards on gun security is better than what we've(U.S.) got.
Now. I do have an extreme bias concerning weapon security. Two people who were important to me died because the owners of the weapons that killed them didn't care enough to protect the rest of the world from their guns.

Pretending that the manufacturer of a gun safe having the ability to help legal investigations means gun safes are security is positively


Australian.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The two objectives aren't compatible.

Nor are they mutually exclusive.

Yes, they absolutely are, as I just explained.

If the police can obtain your credentials, then potentially so can the guy who has a night job as a janitor at the police department.

Nevertheless, having more safeguards on gun security is better than what we've(U.S.) got.
Now. I do have an extreme bias concerning weapon security. Two people who were important to me died because the owners of the weapons that killed them didn't care enough to protect the rest of the world from their guns.

Pretending that the manufacturer of a gun safe having the ability to help legal investigations means gun safes are security is positively


Australian.
Tom

This is incoherent.

I literally have zero clue what you are attempting to communicate here.

 

[TomC]

I literally have zero clue what you are attempting to communicate here.

That keeping guns in a safe that can only be opened by a handful of people is safer than leaving them around anywhere handy.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

I don't see it that way.
Having a combination that protects dangerous objects from thieves and such makes perfect sense.
Protecting you from investigations for your own criminal behavior not so much.
Tom

Then you believe in a slightly less free society than I do. To each their own.

And you believe in a slightly more violent society.
To each their own.
Tom

Well, that’s the tension between freedom and control. The question always comes down to where one draws the line.

 

[bilby]

I literally have zero clue what you are attempting to communicate here.

That keeping guns in a safe that can only be opened by a handful of people is safer than leaving them around anywhere handy.
Tom

That was never in question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Letting the manufacturer have the capability of overriding your safe's combination seems, as you point out, to defeats part of the purpose of having a personal safe.

The manufacturer having a code is akin to providing password reset functionality. That's why they do it. Normally it is a plus for the consumer as the manufacturer leaking it is not a realistic threat.

The only case where it poses any real threat is it lets the government from doing a sneak-and-peek on the contents of your safe. If it's an openly-executed warrant they'll drill it if you don't open it, it's just a speed bump. (And note that it has been established the government can't compel passwords--and a safe combo is a form of password.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with the comment above that it’s moot, really. They WILL get into the safe. The combo allows you to still have it after they are done.

Actually, they don't destroy the safe. The mechanism in the center that locks it gets destroyed but everything else will work like it did. You just have to replace the lock.