> The important thing to remember is that you aren't fooling anyone. It's quite clear what your unpleasant design is designed to prevent, and the design itself

> The important thing to remember is that you aren't fooling anyone. It's quite clear what your unpleasant design is designed to prevent, and the design itself serves as a constant reminder of the problem it was designed to solve. Is that really true though? Things like spikes are clearly hostile add-ons; there is no reason for their existence other than preventing some behaviour, so nobody is fooled. However, something like an arm rest on a bench may appear completely innocuous to the majority of people. The same goes for pink or blue lighting, and some of the "features" of the Camden Bench (e.g. no nooks to stash drugs) would probably go unnoticed if they weren't explicitly stated. I suppose it's like having the mindset of a security researcher (e.g. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/smart_water.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/smart_water.h... ); unless you're engaged in them yourself, it takes a certain kind of mind to figure out what behaviours would be possible if it weren't for these contrivances.