3 ms·
The more hassle involved with breaking the lock the harder it is to be steal, that makes sense. Don't forget about security by obscurity, though. Let's say a cr
by reidjs 4y ago
The more hassle involved with breaking the lock the harder it is to be steal, that makes sense. Don't forget about security by obscurity, though. Let's say a criminal with a bolt cutter finds their way to an unattended gym locker room and they can only have time to snip one or two locks. The majority of the lockers have generic Master Locks, a few have some exotic "ultra-secure" locks on them. Do they randomly snip a locker with a generic Master Lock, or do they pick the bright-orange-ultra-secure-lock-probably-hiding-a-tablet-and-laptop locker?
- giantg2 4y agoWouldn't that be a bad example? That they could still snip the better locks seems like they're not really better. In general, you would want a lock that they would need a special tool that they didn't bring. For example, maybe the thief could have cut(saw) the higher end locks, but they only brought bolt cutters because they're faster and work on 90% of the locks.
- johannes1234321 4y agoNot necessarily. The attack has to be expensive enough (in time, noise, ....) To be discouraging for making the attacker go elsewhere or not attacking at all.
- giantg2 4y agoMy point was that the example give involved "better" locks that were just as vulnerable as the cheaper ones.
- lazide 4y agoMany better locks from a picking perspective are only mildly better from a physical security perspective. If someone has brought tools (portable angle grinder, hydraulic bolt cutters, or a prybar) sufficient to take out most locks, they'll take out most locks unless you upgrade A LOT. At which point they can usually use the same tools to defeat the hasp, and you're still compromised.