Kyle Hamilton wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Eddy Nigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jean-Marc Desperrier: >>> Graham Leggett wrote: >>>> This is the classic balance between convenience and security. >>> inconvenience != security. >>> >>> inconvenience == unsecurity. >>> >> Every time I come from shopping it's very inconvenient to put down the >> shopping bags, grab for my keys and open the front door of my house. Then >> pick up my bags again. After entering I have to lock the door again (by >> convenience, if I want). But overall, what an inconvenience...why did they >> put a door and lock there? > > To keep honest people honest, and to inconvenience you in a visible > way that gives you a false sense of security. If someone really wants > to steal something from your home, they'll break a window -- which is > a much more expensive replacement than a lock or door, and much less > secure.
Ahhh... it's more subtle than that. The purpose of a good lock is *not* to keep the burgler out. It is more subtle; it is to *stop the burgler getting out*. This is because the theory of burglary is that the crook can always get in, but he needs to carry heavy stuff out. Sure he can break a window to get in. But can he climb out the window carrying a TV? Most burglaries are conducted by entering through the window and leaving through the front door. Hence, deadbolts. (You might validly ask then how Jean-Marc's lock works. I'm guessing that it also has a mode to lock it "dead" on exiting, which is easy to unlock on entering.) iang
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
