Re: Brinks vs. Tech-man.com

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
>>I beg to disagree with you on this one.
>>The cost of replacing a board is so low
>>as to virtually eliminate your argument
>>on fear of takeovers...
>
>
> I didn't say it's prohibitive.  I only said that anti-takeover is *the* primiary rewason for programming lockout codes.

Not a whole lot of dealers use them.  It's been a very long while since
I came across a panel that was actually "locked out".  Most alarm
dealers use a secure "dealer code" (unique installer code).  If the
dealer doesn't default the codes when the customer cancels it's a
relatively simple matter to default the control and reprogram it.



> That's *your* reason, but you're honest.  Now think for a moment about all the scammers and rip-off companies you compete with.
> Remember a certain unlicensed installing dealer right in your area?  How about all the low-lifes in the association who protected
> them, despite knowing they operated illegally?

You mean like you did for four years?


>
> Aside from the inoirdinate percentage of crooks in the industry, let's examine what the manufacturers say about their products.
> Remember, these companies are not marketing to homeowners.  Their target audience is us dealers.

Bass, you're a moron.  These days consumers are far more savvy about
what's "out there".  Most will have already picked the system they want
before they even call a dealer for quote.  I've never employed
programming lock-out on any panel, and I don't know of a dealer in
Vancouver that does use them.  You continue to "promote" your Mantra in
a forum in which you know the predominant number of participants are
alarm dealers and installers.  Go peddle your bullshit in CHA.  The
people there simply "eat up" everything you say.


>
> FBII refers to the lockout code in their literature as an "CSID and installer code, anti-takeover feature".  This is an age-old
> "feature" of alarm panels and it has always been touted as such be the manufacturers because they know that's why the dealers
> demanded the feature.  Even the old Discovery system made several references in the manual to "an anti-takeover" featre, namely the
> lockout code.

So??


>
> The ultra-modern ELK-M1 sports it.  From the manual: "ELK-RP programming utilizes extensive error checking and security safeguards,
> including data encryption, password log-on, serial number, and dealer assigned RP access code. The serial # identifies the control
> to RP while the RP access code identifies the computer to the control prior to a programming session. RP loads the access code
> during the first connection. It cannot be viewed or changed from local keypad programming. In addition to these safeguards, you can
> set an anti-takeover option from RP which prevents certain keypad programming. Even a total default of the panel programming cannot
> reset the anti-takeover option once it is set..."

Big whoop!!


>
> Manufacturers don't market the feature as an "anti-liability lawsuit because your customer screwed up" feature.  They market it as
> "anti-takeover" because they know what will conveince dealers to buy the product.

That's out and out poppy-cock.  Manufacturers don't actively "market"
the feature.  Some national dealers have insisted they provide it as a
"deterrent" to another company simply waltzing in and taking over.
You'll notice the biggest advocates for employing the "feature" have now
been provided with customized firmware which makes taking over the
specific panel virtually impossible (even *if* the lock-out code is
"cracked").


>
>
>>that will prevent the system from
>>functioning correctly and therefore
>>exposing us to litigation.
>
>
> Speaking of litigation, I'd like to see just one of the folks who say this "feature" is to prevent liability cite a single lawsuit
> arising from a client havine reprogrammed his own alarm.  Most of us have been in the industry for many years.  I, for one, have
> been a dealer for nearly 30 years and I love to study case law -- aespecially alarm company related case law, yet I've never heard
> of a single such case.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think or how much "law" you've
"studied".  Considering that you're a convicted felon makes anything you
say pretty well irrelevant, and I would *never* suggest anyone base an
installation business on your "model" anyway.

>
> Allan, we've been friends for years.  You know I respect your personal integrity so please don't take this as reflecting on you but
> I know for a fact that the vast majority lock customer out to make it harder to switch and for no other purpose.

Bullshit.