6 ms·

Incoming article titles: * I was locked out of my apartment because I left my charger cable at home. * My home unlock app keeps crashing. * My smartphone was

by htag 4y ago

Incoming article titles: * I was locked out of my apartment because I left my charger cable at home. * My home unlock app keeps crashing. * My smartphone was stolen so I was homeless for a night while I waited for the Apple Store to open. * Automate evictions with smartlocks

SoftTalker 4y ago
The last one is probably illegal. The only way to do an eviction is through the courts, and there's not really much "automation" available.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Sure but it becomes really hard to fight it when you are locked out of your home and possessions. The reality is that possession is 9/10ths of the law.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Changing a physical lock is not difficult. It's not done quickly to evict people because it's a guaranteed win in civil court and a criminal offense.
  - PKop 4y ago
    Technology is not the limiting factor preventing indiscriminate lock-out evictions. It is trivial to do so without an app.
    - ReptileMan 4y ago
      Disagree here. The laws are pretty well established when it comes to physical objects and renting. Electronics are a bit more unsettled. I rotate the pin of the electronic keylock once a month for your security ... when you stop paying rent- whether I need to give you the new code is a bit more fuzzy I think. Anyway if you have to harass a tenant I think that cutting off electricity is the best way. Renders a home almost unusable. But it is not really vital.
      - PKop 4y ago
        No! (Unless your state is different but I highly doubt it). Tell me which state is not like this? The law in Ohio forbids a landlord from evicting a tenant in any way except through the court system. The landlord must successfully win an eviction lawsuit before a tenant can be evicted. It is illegal for a landlord to try to force a tenant to leave a rental unit by shutting off the utilities, changing the locks, or interfering in any other way with the tenant's ability to live in the rental unit "No landlord of residential premises shall initiate any act, including termination of utilities or services, exclusion from the premises, or threat of any unlawful act, against a tenant, or a tenant whose right to possession has terminated, for the purpose of recovering possession of residential premises, other than as provided in Chapters 1923., 5303., and 5321. of the Revised Code. (B) No landlord of residential premises shall seize the furnishings or possessions of a tenant, or of a tenant whose right to possession has terminated, for the purpose of recovering rent payments, other than in accordance with an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (C) A landlord who violates this section is liable in a civil action for all damages caused to a tenant, or to a tenant whose right to possession has terminated, together with reasonable attorneys fees." https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5321.15 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5321.15
  - Sophira 4y ago
    And this is why everything is moving more and more towards a "no possessions" kind of style.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  They can likely pull all kinds of shenanigans by slipping something into your rental agreement to the effect of, "if the tenant is behind on rent we reserve the right to revoke access to their keys and require the tenant to ask the front attendant to unlock and lock their unit as necessary". Basically still give you access but make it extremely painful and degrading or shameful to ask someone to open it (and maybe even limit your ability to do so to office hours).
  - Sebguer 4y ago
    No, they really can't. Maybe in a handful of places that have completely given up on the idea of tenant's rights, but this wouldn't fly in almost any major city in the US.
    - qbasic_forever 4y ago
      Like I said it's shenanigans. Almost certainly the law is not explicit enough to say people are required to have a functioning key, it likely just says people are required to have residency of a unit. If gaining entry requires some ridiculous process and you sign a rental agreement agreeing to follow it then that's that.
      - californical 4y ago
        I’m pretty sure that “physical access” is a requirement for residency, and every single legal process would uphold that
        qbasic_forever 4y ago
        Yes, and if you agree your physical access requires checking in with a front desk attendant then it's fine.
      - pgwhalen 4y ago
        The law is not a smart contract with exploitable loopholes; obvious malice like you describe would be found illegal.
- htag 4y ago
  I hate to even put this in the ether, but someone could make a startup that integrates key management, property management, and gig-economy lawyers.
  - walrus01 4y ago
    add some vrbo/airbnb type management functions into it too, and also automated utility billing like for smart electrical meters (which of course you must pay through a web portal that charges a 3% convenience fee), etc.
  - hackernewds 4y ago
    This could be an entryway into making "Airbnb friendly" apartments
- masklinn 4y ago
  > The last one is probably illegal. Landlords, that famously decent and 100% completely law abiding group of people.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I think any landlord that violates these sort of laws should not be allowed to be a landlord anymore.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  "No rent, no service". Getting the lock device changed == service. The courts will have to square that one.
Sebguer 4y ago
I've honestly trapped myself outside a bunch of times in the few months I've lived in one of these buildings. Fwiw, Butterfly lets you set up access codes that persist, and so technically if you set one and remember it you can't lock yourself out... but my building's elevators are also fob-locked, so even if I can get into the building, I end up trapped in the lobby until someone's willing to fob me upstairs.
HWR_14 4y ago
The second one is already part of the article.

by htag 4y ago

SoftTalker 4y ago

The last one is probably illegal. The only way to do an eviction is through the courts, and there's not really much "automation" available.

kneebonian 4y ago
Sure but it becomes really hard to fight it when you are locked out of your home and possessions. The reality is that possession is 9/10ths of the law.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Changing a physical lock is not difficult. It's not done quickly to evict people because it's a guaranteed win in civil court and a criminal offense.
- PKop 4y ago
  Technology is not the limiting factor preventing indiscriminate lock-out evictions. It is trivial to do so without an app.
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    Disagree here. The laws are pretty well established when it comes to physical objects and renting. Electronics are a bit more unsettled. I rotate the pin of the electronic keylock once a month for your security ... when you stop paying rent- whether I need to give you the new code is a bit more fuzzy I think. Anyway if you have to harass a tenant I think that cutting off electricity is the best way. Renders a home almost unusable. But it is not really vital.
    - PKop 4y ago
      No! (Unless your state is different but I highly doubt it). Tell me which state is not like this? The law in Ohio forbids a landlord from evicting a tenant in any way except through the court system. The landlord must successfully win an eviction lawsuit before a tenant can be evicted. It is illegal for a landlord to try to force a tenant to leave a rental unit by shutting off the utilities, changing the locks, or interfering in any other way with the tenant's ability to live in the rental unit "No landlord of residential premises shall initiate any act, including termination of utilities or services, exclusion from the premises, or threat of any unlawful act, against a tenant, or a tenant whose right to possession has terminated, for the purpose of recovering possession of residential premises, other than as provided in Chapters 1923., 5303., and 5321. of the Revised Code. (B) No landlord of residential premises shall seize the furnishings or possessions of a tenant, or of a tenant whose right to possession has terminated, for the purpose of recovering rent payments, other than in accordance with an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (C) A landlord who violates this section is liable in a civil action for all damages caused to a tenant, or to a tenant whose right to possession has terminated, together with reasonable attorneys fees." https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5321.15 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5321.15
- Sophira 4y ago
  And this is why everything is moving more and more towards a "no possessions" kind of style.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
They can likely pull all kinds of shenanigans by slipping something into your rental agreement to the effect of, "if the tenant is behind on rent we reserve the right to revoke access to their keys and require the tenant to ask the front attendant to unlock and lock their unit as necessary". Basically still give you access but make it extremely painful and degrading or shameful to ask someone to open it (and maybe even limit your ability to do so to office hours).
- Sebguer 4y ago
  No, they really can't. Maybe in a handful of places that have completely given up on the idea of tenant's rights, but this wouldn't fly in almost any major city in the US.
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Like I said it's shenanigans. Almost certainly the law is not explicit enough to say people are required to have a functioning key, it likely just says people are required to have residency of a unit. If gaining entry requires some ridiculous process and you sign a rental agreement agreeing to follow it then that's that.
    - californical 4y ago
      I’m pretty sure that “physical access” is a requirement for residency, and every single legal process would uphold that
      - qbasic_forever 4y ago
        Yes, and if you agree your physical access requires checking in with a front desk attendant then it's fine.
    - pgwhalen 4y ago
      The law is not a smart contract with exploitable loopholes; obvious malice like you describe would be found illegal.
htag 4y ago
I hate to even put this in the ether, but someone could make a startup that integrates key management, property management, and gig-economy lawyers.
- walrus01 4y ago
  add some vrbo/airbnb type management functions into it too, and also automated utility billing like for smart electrical meters (which of course you must pay through a web portal that charges a 3% convenience fee), etc.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  This could be an entryway into making "Airbnb friendly" apartments
masklinn 4y ago
> The last one is probably illegal. Landlords, that famously decent and 100% completely law abiding group of people.
- mcv 4y ago
  I think any landlord that violates these sort of laws should not be allowed to be a landlord anymore.
cryptonector 4y ago
"No rent, no service". Getting the lock device changed == service. The courts will have to square that one.

Sebguer 4y ago

I've honestly trapped myself outside a bunch of times in the few months I've lived in one of these buildings. Fwiw, Butterfly lets you set up access codes that persist, and so technically if you set one and remember it you can't lock yourself out... but my building's elevators are also fob-locked, so even if I can get into the building, I end up trapped in the lobby until someone's willing to fob me upstairs.

HWR_14 4y ago

The second one is already part of the article.