Re: More Brinks stuff for sale.

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just Looking wrote:
> He told the judge to "fumar de wiener"?

No.  Jim's far to polite to ever say that (even to a judge).

He was unable to go for personal reasons I won't reveal here.  If Jim
wants to, that's different.

While we're on the subject, I wrote an email to Brink's attorney.  I
haven't heard "squeak".  I've also managed to resolve the issue of "Tech
Help!" with my hosting provider.  To make a long story short, if Brinks
is able to provide me with details of where their IP or Copyright has
been violated, I've advised them I would remove the software
immediately.  I also referred them to my disclaimer and requested that
future communications should be directed to me as I'm in a better
position to judge whether-or-not "Tech Help!" poses a threat to them (or
the security community at large).  Jim posting the default installer
code for their panels is not, in my opinion, a threat unless they're
dumb enough not to change it.  And if they are, in fact, only "renting"
equipment, then local programming lock-out should be enabled to prevent
*anyone* from accessing installer level programming.

All of this, of course, raises another question.  Why would Brinks
choose to "dumb down" and eliminate some of the user features available
on the standard Vista panel?  I can't for the life of my figure out why
they would want to eliminate something as important as keypad
supervision (for instance).  On a UL Res Fire certified system, they'd
have to disable the "fire buttons" on those keypads.  Seems to me that
makes selling against them pretty easy.  Perhaps that's the reason they
want everything to do with their equipment to remain in their domain (as
if *that's* going to "keep it secret").

eBay is actively auctioning Brinks yard signs and stickers.  They've
only recently sold a complete Brinks system (brand new and in a sealed
box).  Where do you imagine the sellers are getting this stuff?  Why
aren't Brinks attorneys shutting down http://wwww.alarmsbc.com (or at
the very least getting them to pull their collection of Brinks user
manuals)?  I just don't get it.  Is Jim a "fall guy" because they figure
he's a "push-over" and it'll be easy to obtain a judgment?  Once they
get it will they be able to use that against other individuals?  I can't
see how a "default judgment" against Jim would work for them because
they still haven't managed to actually identify the IP they're defending.

Jim says they're at around the 50K mark.  I can believe that.  Sableman
won't come cheap, but sooner or later, someone at Brinks is going to
start asking some hard questions.