Re: What a stupid way to design a panel SK

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 20, 2:53=A0am, mleuck <m.le...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:19=A0pm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 7:08=A0pm, nick markowitz <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > We all know panel take overs happen all the time why they would desig=
n
> > > the SK 5808 that only way it can be defaulted is sent back to factory
> > > and leaving a client with out protection is beyond me. at least the
> > > older panels you could change a chip or use a jumper etc to reset it.
> > > Typical stupid engineer thinking.
>
> > RHC: Hey, it's no different than the same stupid engineering thinking
> > that designed the hardware lockout feature. Both manufacturers want
> > you to have to buy another board, rather than reuse an existing one
> > again. Designing the old one that way, or putting in an installer lock
> > feature in the newer ones just ensures that profit trumps ethics. What
> > else is new ??
>
> How is that an ethics issue by the factory? It has nothing to do with
> profiting from the replaced board, it's called S E C U R I T Y

RHC: It's very much an ethical issue when companies deliberately put
in a feature that has NO redeeming security value and is ONLY used to
either make it slightly more expensive to takeover the board, or
ensure new homeowners moving in have no access to their fully owned
equipment and are not free to chose companies without paying for a new
board (changing the installer code is enought to protect anything in
the panel that needs protection) Companies that claim it's useful
because it further protects their "free systems" from theft are
deluding themselves, since any company wishing to ignore contractual
terms and do so only has to replace a $50 board to take the system
over. The feature is far more often misused than used properly, and
alarm manufacturers are comfortable with this, or turn their heads,
because it's a win/win situation - they sell more boards and alarmco's
continue to demand it thinking it provides more protection than it
does, or more likely simply don't giving a damn !

I was approached once by a lawmaker from Denver, Colorado who had
studied it, and indicated that he fully agreed this is something that
should be changed in law, but of course it went nowhere due to it's
relative minor nature in the whole legal scheme of things. It's like
selling someone a car and putting a padlock on the hood so you don't
have access to your own equipment. If a company wishes to lock a
board, they should be compelled to dial in and unlock it once the
contract is finished - period ! (and this should be at no cost to the
board owner, since THEY chose to do this for their supposed
"protection" while under contract)

It's one of those issues that is little known outside our industry,
but one that is and should be denounced for what it is! And companies
like DSC have even gone so far as to make their newer series 1616 and
1832 panels much more resistant to being unlocked ! Shame on them -
money always before ethics !

Nor do I think it will ever change since it's totally industry self
serving. But that doesn't make it right !