Guest rjbsec Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 The point is that the majority of people don't have a clue (how many stories have their been about "magic beams of light" etc..), and therefore, there are systems, and rules imposed to protect the majority from their ignorance. Andrew, I would have to say that I don't think the industry is much concerned with those who suffer "ignorance" of security systems, in truth they are basically safe - it's the people that think they know, want to know, or take apart in order to know that causes us the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdosrun Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Duly noted rjbsec, I meant in relation to the specification of the specification of the system, where the factor of money may play a more important role if their knowledge of the security system was less than ideal. The reason being that if such stringent precautions hadn't been enacted in the form of rules, a less scrupulous installer may simply go with the customers preference (based on cost) rather than something suitable. However, you are quite right, I am the sort of person who would (and does) tinker with a system, and at least having installed and programmed it will allow me to correct it. Without that prior insight however, I would be likely to render a system inoperable (if I had access). From my perspective, I would find a professionally installed system restrictive as I want to use the outputs on the alarm for courtesy lights, but I understand that in order to have what I want, there are limitations (that being a DIY system) because of rules enacted to protect the majority. Incidentally, why did you have to quote part of my post with a glaring grammatical error? ;-) I suppose it serves me right for rewriting and not checking. Andrew Any statement made or information provided in this post are the mere opinions of the author, and no inferrence is to be made as to the quality of information nor should any reliance be placed upon its contents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 From my perspective, I would find a professionally installed system restrictive to restrict people from compromising the installation is whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rjbsec Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Incidentally, why did you have to quote part of my post with a glaring grammatical error? ;-) I suppose it serves me right for rewriting and not checking.Andrew Some would say Freudian considering the subject under discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian gladman Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Some would say Freudian considering the subject under discussion! While we are talking about Freudian slips, I thought this from Mr Happy "engineers are employed not only for their fitting skills... but because of their conduct & character" was highly amusing after I had received a torrent of abuse from him in public (as well as infringement of my copyright). But, of course, amusing is not the right word since, if you re-read Mr Happy's contributions you will see that this TRADE MEMBER of your profession openly incited burglary by suggesting that my exact address could be found by using UKINFO. And the fact that he was able to do this anonymously means that the only way a member of the public reading this thread can avoid having their security possibly depend on Mr Happy is to avoid ALL of you! I wonder if this highly professional engineer, one whose conduct and character are supposedly beyond doubt, will now remove this shadow he has cast over your whole profession by telling us all who he is, who he works for or who he is registered with? It's now your turn Mr Happy. with best regards, Brian Gladman PS I was not going to return to this thread until Mr Happy encouraged me to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RichardS Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Your comment about Coopers not wanting this information given out makes me despair about their true interest in my security as the only people put at SECURITY risk by this policy are honest law abiding alarm owners. erm... I'm not a security installer but I can see the danger in giving out this information to joe public, do you really want bob the burglar to be able to default your system and thereby render it useless. Yes as the home owner you may well have a 'right' to have the system in your house reset but I suspect you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are first before anyone is going to consider doing this and this forum is not equipped to do this - Coopers may well be. I also suspect that you do not have the right to default anyone else's alarm that happens to have the same panel as you therefore the chance of someone giving you a universal reset code for this series of panels is probably pretty slim. After all there's nothing to stop a burglar buying an alarm - if Coopers gave out reset/default codes to alarm owners it would significantly reduce their standing as a provider of security. As for the installers here would you respect them more if they gave out, as a result of a request on a public forum, the default code for your alarm? If I had the same alarm panel as you I'd be mad as hell and would consider seeking legal advice in order to get a different panel fitted at the expense of the numpty giving out the codes. So I can fully understand why this information is not given out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 While we are talking about Freudian slips, I thought this from Mr Happy "engineers are employed I wonder if this highly professional engineer, one whose conduct and character are supposedly beyond doubt, will now remove this shadow he has cast over your whole profession by telling us all who he is, who he works for or who he is registered with? READ your own posts, and READ the PM I've sent you would seem to be an intelligent man you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian gladman Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 READ your own posts, and READ the PM I've sent you would seem to be an intelligent man you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 erm... I'm not a security installer but I can see the danger in giving out this information to joe public, do you really want bob the burglar to be able to default your system and thereby render it useless.Yes as the home owner you may well have a 'right' to have the system in your house reset but I suspect you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are first before anyone is going to consider doing this and this forum is not equipped to do this - Coopers may well be. I also suspect that you do not have the right to default anyone else's alarm that happens to have the same panel as you therefore the chance of someone giving you a universal reset code for this series of panels is probably pretty slim. After all there's nothing to stop a burglar buying an alarm - if Coopers gave out reset/default codes to alarm owners it would significantly reduce their standing as a provider of security. As for the installers here would you respect them more if they gave out, as a result of a request on a public forum, the default code for your alarm? If I had the same alarm panel as you I'd be mad as hell and would consider seeking legal advice in order to get a different panel fitted at the expense of the numpty giving out the codes. So I can fully understand why this information is not given out. Well said my friend. I really can't be ar**** with it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian gladman Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 erm... I'm not a security installer but I can see the danger in giving out this information to joe public, do you really want bob the burglar to be able to default your system and thereby render it useless. If an alarm has a factory reset that can be exploited by an ordinary burglar, then the design of the alarm is deficient. It is true that a sophisticated burglar could exploit a factory reset but an ordinary house alarm is not going to stop such a burglar anyway so this is not the real issue. The primary problem with making factory reset information openly available is the one raised by rjbsec and others in that this could encourage those who don't have the competence to fiddle with their alarms to do just this and render them useless in the process (I could spend time on the extent to which society should protect people from their own incompetence but I won't). As cdosrun pointed out the problem then becomes one of how to cope with the vast majority of alarm users who are not in a position to manage their own security whilst also coping with the minority of users who want to fully control their alarms and have the competence to do so. For some in this 1% there isn't an issue since they can go down the DIY route. The people who miss out are the ones who want an alarm system put in professionally but then want to fully manage it themselves thereafter. If I understand what has been said here, these folk have to use a less professional installer to put their alarms in. I don't know whether there are many who find themselves in this camp but my guess is that there aren't so its probably not a significant issue. The only reason this was a problem for me was I inherited an alarm fitted for the 99% that I wanted to move into the 1% camp. with best regards, Brian Gladman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.