[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Brinks & Broadview Takeovers



On Oct 2, 6:49=A0pm, mleuck <m.le...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
RHC:  The panel "MAY" be his (and that is in doubt in several parts of
the
> country) but the programming isn't, if they don't unlock it (for a
> fee) afterwards that

RHC: I'm not talking about Binky's leased systems, I'm  talking about
people who clearly own their panels. And what the hell is a bit of
programming; it can be removed by downloading so there is NO excuse
for leaving someone else's board locked. If you lock it for whatever
imaginary need you see, then you have a responsibility to unlock it as
well. Otherwise, you have engaged in a form of theft.
>
> In my experience locked board HAVE prevented several instances of
> someone stealing our accounts

RHC: Then the "thief" couldn't have been much of an alarm installer or
service person. Between companies the whole thing is a joke from the
point of view of keeping others away. For an end user caught in the
middle of this industry foolishness, it can be a serious thing.
Besides, no matter how you cut it, this feature is plain wrong. Your
so called valuable programming is "protected" by normal use of your
installer code. Default the board and this "proprietary" information
disappears with everything else. So what does a lockout feature do
other than interfere with the takeover or transfer of an account. And
the end user more often than not, suffers the consequences of
inappropriate use of this feature, or gets hammered simply due to the
fact that these smaller companies (who as you say, use it far more
often than the big boys) disappears into financial oblivion.

Maybe I harp on it too much, but that doesn't change the fact it is
abused far more often than it is used correctly (and there are damn
few uses that fall in that category......)


alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home