Skip the Picks; Expert Uses Hammer To Open a Master Lock (csoonline.com)

itwbennett writes: Buyer beware. If it's security you're looking for, the #3 Master Lock might not be for you. In a video, locksport enthusiast Bosnian Bill demonstrates how to open a new #3 Master Lock using a small brass hammer — in under 90 seconds. This video is just one of several videos he's produced focusing on defeating the security of Master Locks, and, according to Bosnian Bill, has earned him several lawsuit threats from the company.

Comments

Re:Forgot to mention...

[Coren22]

But, can an acetylene torch, bolt cutters, or hydrofluoric acid leave you a complete lack of evidence of tampering? He didn't smash the lock, just tapped it.

I'm confident 80% of posters didn't watch video

[JMZero]

This isn't like "oh, I can eventually break this lock by smashing it", it's "this lock opens if you tap it in the right place". It takes seconds, and requires nothing in the way of fancy technique or specialized tools.

Yes, we all get it, any lock can be defeated - but this isn't the right story to use that stock comment on. This isn't someone smashing a small lock with a big hammer - this is someone demonstrating how defective a particular lock is, and it makes for an entertaining little video.

Re:I'm confident 80% of posters didn't watch video

[honestmonkey]

I'm guessing it's more like 90%. "Duh, you can smash a lock, doy doy doy!" Not what this was about at all. Even one of the comments on yours was something about needed a lot of practice, which with this technique you don't. Put some tension on the lock tap it on the side. I suppose that the headline was not nuanced enough. "Skip the picks, just tap the lock on the side".

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

But everybody needs to realize that locks and keys only keep honest people honest anyway. There is not much you can do to stop somebody from breaking in if they really want to. About all you can hope for is to make it take long enough to break in that they get caught when they try.

That's completely false. An honest person wouldn't steal someone else's stuff, whether it's locked up or not. A lock is a basic form of security that only keeps someone whose dishonesty is only being kept in check by having to expend any effort at all.

It's all on a spectrum. If someone is totally honest, no locks are required. If someone is slightly dishonest, they might decide that defeating the lock isn't worth the effort or the reward, so the lock protects the thing. If someone is hell bent on defeating the lock for whatever reason, then they'll do it, or work as hard as possible to do it.

But to say that locks are only good to protect your stuff from honest people (who, if they were honest, wouldn't steal it anyway) is ludicrous.

Re:heh

[bobbied]

You do realize that the saying "keeping honest people honest" is a common idiom, I didn't invent it.

This idiom is contradictory on it's face but it illustrates a truth about people and the human condition, nobody is perfect. You can obtain a large amount of compliance by placing even token limits on behavior. It's why we paint lines on roads, put locks on doors, label doors "Entry Only" (when by law they must function as an exit) and put DNS filters on company networks to keep NSFW surfing down. We encourage generally honest people to stay on the straight and narrow by offering even token amounts of effort to step over into "dishonest" behavior. None of my examples are any more than tokens and all are easily circumvented with little effort and serve to encourage imperfect people to do the right things because most of us actually have a conscience that we listen to and it screams loudly when it take effort to do wrong.

So, really, NOBODY is totally honest, but keeping the majority of people from being dishonest doesn't usually take much.... Which if you think about the idiom, is a clever illustration of the concept, even if it has logical consistency issues because none of us are perfect..