http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/ Engadget Comments for The Lockdown: Locked, but not secure (Part 2) http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Feb 5th 2008 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
This article and to all the people who are saying medeco can be bumped is full of crap, and don't know what they are talking about.

You have in a medeco lock 4 different security measures. The side bar is one, the slider is one, the angle tumblers is one and the security pins is another. with all of these thing put in place you have a better chance of winning the lottery then bumping.
medeco is built and made in the usa
so if your going to buy a product buy medeco, it's a very good product that I will stand behind.....It's on my house!

by the way multi locks have beenaround for awhile know I dealt with them personally. I took them off the door and put them right in the garbage. NOT a good product...

You don't have to take my word contact medeco or assa abloy, but hopefully this will help some people out there to know the truth
]]>Feb 21st 2008 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.a1qualitysafe.com/site/408162/page/91221
Hopefully the crook will not find it hidden in the floor and if he does safe locks are always much harder to pick than door locks
]]>Jul 7th 2008 3:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Aug 25th 2006 4:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
]]>Aug 25th 2006 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/However, as stated in many articles, this is just one step in getting complete security, you also need a glass breaking sensor, alarm system and solid doors that can not be kicked open…
It sounds overwhelming, but this is what it takes to keep you and your family secured.

You can get more tips at: www.Your-Locksmith.com
]]>Aug 23rd 2007 5:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
The best lock to protect your home is the GLock.]]>Aug 25th 2006 4:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
but if I come home and all my stuff is stolen and there's no sign of ANY break-in, I'm totally screwed because insurance won't pay.

i see there are RFID locks, but they are $300 a piece. I have 3 doors to put them on and $900 is a LOT of money]]>Aug 25th 2006 4:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Get someone to write this in a way that is actually useful, and the information will be ... umm ... useful! Instead it ends up sounding scary, but doesn't really help people address the problem in their own door.

Cripes.

Generally, what I want to know is this: Which locks (as in, lock brands) are, and aren't vulnerable.

Specifally: Are Medeco and Mul-T-Lock products vulnerable, or not? The information in this article, and in others I've seen on this subject, are pretty uniformly confusing, or full of caveats. Or, different sources vehemently contradict one another on questions like these.

Help!]]>Aug 25th 2006 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Aug 26th 2006 1:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Aug 25th 2006 4:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Uhhhh... like a combination lock?

I have seen plenty of combination deadbolt locks for sale at places like the Home Despot over the years. I have known a few friends who had them, as well. Surely you can't "keybump" a combination lock.]]>Aug 25th 2006 4:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
http://www.medeco.com/about/whats_new/pr/bump.html]]>Aug 25th 2006 4:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Aug 25th 2006 4:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
My question is: Are they in fact bump-proof? There are contradictory claims floating around. EG I have read elsewhere (not in this post) that Medecos can be bumped by someone who has a selection of Medeco bump keys to choose from, each with a different sidebar design that can be tried until one works. Obviously, if that's true, it decreases the criminal's odds ... but I still have the question: Is it true, or not. Or is the risk so miniscule as to be irrelevant to me as a person with a Medeco lock on my door.


Anyway, ]]>Aug 25th 2006 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Aug 25th 2006 5:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
They specifically mention bumping the Mul-T-Lock in the whitepaper.

I think I'll switch to this:

http://www.apsibiometrics.com/biometrics_residential_products.htm]]>Aug 25th 2006 5:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
http://www.mul-t-lockusa.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=51]]>Aug 25th 2006 5:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
One mechanism that comes to mind immediately is a row of locking pins designed to lock the plug if it is not keyed during rotation. Would this not work?]]>Aug 26th 2006 11:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
This was probably my post, unless I missed another.

HOWEVER, I never said anything about a "commercial metal door frame". I said it would break the glass in a *residential door*. My door, for example, is made of a wood frame with stained glass panes. If I were to bump it even with the force that the 11 year old girl used in her demonstration, I would break at least half the panes in my door. Residential doors made of wood and glass are not designed for strength.

Bumping a lock requires approximately as much force on a door as if you slam it hard. That's all you really need to know. So if you'd be concerned about your door glass breaking if you slammed the door, then thieves would have the same concern about bumping your door. (In fact, a couple of panes in my door are cracked just through regular opening and closing.)

So my original reply still stands. Maybe the quote above wasn't referring to my reply but to someone else, but my front door would never stand up to bumping and would make a huge racket if anyone tried it, and I'm sure a lot of other residential doors are the same. A thief may as well just smash in a window.
]]>Aug 25th 2006 9:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
you "misunderestimate" the properties of your door. That wasn't a hard impact (in the video), and most doors are built to withstand the amound of force that might be used when a 7 year old locks out a 9 year old sibling. I remember being on both sides of this.]]>Aug 25th 2006 11:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
"Bump keys" have been around for years. I learned about them 7 years or so ago while working for another locksmith who, at the time, had been a locksmith for 27 years. But therein lies the crux of a certain amount of animosity about Mr. Tobias and his articles.

Up until Mr. Tobias starting making what had been information held tightly by the locksmith community for at least a generation, if not 2 generations, public knowlege, Mr. Tobias has effectively put the average homeowner's security at risk.

"Bumping" is not a scare tactic. It does work. But to most locksmiths, it is strictly a last resort. To your average hobbyist or anyone else reading his report, it is "just a fun thing to do."

Locksmiths use the skill of picking locks which takes quite a while to hone and other bypass methods to let homeowners into their abodes without damage. I do have a set of bump keys which, frankly, I haven't used in years, once the novelty wore off and I have never used them in front of a customer. Only in a shop where a lock had to be picked before you could remove a cylinder from a knob to re-key it and there was no key available.

Medeco is as close to bump-proof as you can get because of the sidebar, the unique angles of the cuts on the key, the fact the key is restricted and and the sidebar. Mul-T-Lock would come in second, With Schlage Primus and then Everest coming in at 3rd and 4th.

However, as has been mentioned, price can be restrictive to your average homeowner living in a middle income home.

A lock can be keyed in such a way to make it almost impossible to pick and even diffiult to bump, and for this, you should call your local locksmith.

But also make sure your local locksmith is indeed local and watch out for the "gypsy" locksmiths that are flooding the market nowadays. For more information on these "Gypsy" locksmiths go to http://www.jbylocksmith.bravehost.com and click on the tab which says PSA.
]]>Aug 26th 2006 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Don't expect an article that says black-on-white which locks are safe; what would you do as a proud american when you install one of those locks and get mysteriously burglared anyway?

Sue the writer, that's what! A lot of pain for a free little blog column...]]>Aug 26th 2006 4:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Bump keys are no more a threat than any of the hundreds of other ways of getting in your home.
]]>Aug 26th 2006 2:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Aug 26th 2006 3:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
If someone bump keys my lock, there will be no sign of entry and my claim may be denied. ]]>Aug 26th 2006 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
http://connectmedia.waag.org/toool/whatthebump.wmv

Really very few locks are safe from this. Even if your lock manufacturer has a certified lock, all a criminal has to do is buy one of their locks and they have total access to make keys. On the video they were bumping with complex keys, muck more than what I have seen on the average house or business. BTW, took me under 3 mins to make the key.
]]>Aug 26th 2006 9:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
That is ignoring the fact that Glocks are about as dangerous to the shooter as the person being shot at. I'm a cop and a coworker recently would have lost the sight in his eye when his Glock blew-up if the safety glasses hadn't saved him. Since they don't support enough of the case they're more grenade than pistol. Of course people as reckless as you don't care about harming yourself or others so you keep pushing those dangerous devices. I have mine only because it's what my department requires me to carry. I'm smart enough to shoot it as little as required.]]>Aug 27th 2006 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Solution: buy cheap crap that the thieves won't want. ]]>Aug 26th 2006 9:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Well long story short, I found found a local locksmith that convinced me that while Schlage Primus would be overkill, Schlage Everest cylinders while a lot less costly than Primus will give me reasonably good protection against key bumping. The Everest do have a sidecut-type feature that will "help" guard against key bumping.

Reasons given is that Everest blanks are more difficult to obtain than 90% of home door cylinders. Unlike Primus which are very strictly controlled within the lock industry.

If you get a Primus locks,the sidecuts are unique and SPECIFIC only from the locksmith you purchase, which means that you are captive to that locksmith. Also the Primus keys have a breaking weakness due to the regular key cut in combination with the sidecut.

Also there is other low hanging fruit for someone wanting to gain easy entry to a house/apt. Most 999 key sets are for the most common (schlage, westlock, weiser, kwickset and Yale low quality 5 pin cylinders).

Home security is mostly about detering and making it hard for a would-be theives and in turn slowing them down.

my 2 cents]]>Aug 27th 2006 5:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Keys are totally restricted and patent and design protected.]]>Aug 27th 2006 5:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Your information and opinions on the lock manufacturers' quality and security is highly useful, valued and appreciated. However, your comment about Mr. Tobias's article is absolutely ridiculous. 'Security through Obscurity' is NOT security!

This whole bumpkey situation mirrors what seems to have been (mostly) hashed out in the computer security community. Now we seem to have security vendors, indepent security researchers, and software companies working together to quickly patch computer vulnerabilities before malicious coders and others can make a damaging impact on folks' computer systems.

Yes, I realize this is an old technique. It's been known for decades, and yet we haven't heard of rampant, break-ins of the non-forced entry variety. However, that doesn't make it 'right' to hide this fact from those who want to make their homes and (small) businesses more secure.

If nothing else, it gives folks a wake-up call that their homeowner's insurance probably won't cover such break-ins. It brings the practice of multi-layered security to the forefront of their minds. Especially homeowners, who may have let themselves get lax, thinking that their deadbolts were more than adequate protection. ]]>Aug 28th 2006 2:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Thank you for your observations very helpful! ]]>Aug 29th 2006 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Thsi has been posted on two locksmithing websites, and has been tested and fount to be totally effective against bumping.

Any locksmith can contact me through Internet-Locksmith or Clearstar Network for more details.

Oh--and ANY cop who only carries a sidearm because the department requires it, and only shoots his sidearm as much as needed to keep his job is NOT a officer I want on my local police department!

The P.D. where I have my shop issues their officers Glocks, REQUIRES them to have AR-15 rifles (on a celing rack in the squad)and a Remington 870 pump shotgun in the shotgun rack on the dash.

And when they respond to a buglary/robbery in progress, there is NO mistaking that they aren't taking any crap, or playing any games, and really don't care what some damn liberal thinks about the display of arms! They show up to do a job, and do it right the first time!

Allen Murphy ]]>Aug 30th 2006 1:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
If you want people to believe you that any lock can be modified to resist bumping, explain how in sufficient detail to allow others to test it. Or is it super-duper double top secret?
More likely, you're just steamed that someone is blowing the lid on your little house of cards.

Harry]]>Aug 30th 2006 3:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
My comment about his article was simply that:

"Up until Mr. Tobias starting making what had been information held tightly by the locksmith community for at least a generation, if not 2 generations, public knowlege, Mr. Tobias has effectively put the average homeowner's security at risk."

this happens to be a true statement as your "average" homeowner simply cannot afford to install a minimum of two $150 to $200 high security, key-restricted, deadbolts on their home plus the trip charge and the labor for installing the locks. These are people who have trouble meeting the $200 a month electric bill, the senior citizens with huge prescription drug bills every month, and so on.

Until Mr. Tobias decided the whole world should know how to compromise masterkey systems, pick locks, and bump locks open, most of average america was able to tell when they had been broken into. That's not necessarily the case anymore, now is it?

I ran a call a month or so ago. Little old lady who had a day nurse come in. She called because she couldn't get her deadbolt to lock, yet she had locked it the previouse night. On top of that, her key wouldn't even enter the keyhole. Well, I'm thinking this is a little old lady who is lonesome and wants some company or has a few loose marbles.

No way! The lady is sharp as a tack. Reason the key wouldn't enter the keyway is the plug is turned and won't turn back. Yet the deadbolt is in the unlocked position. Bolt withdrawn. Lady said she heard a noise the night before after she had gone to bed and when she looked at the door, the door was ajar with the slide bolt (hotel/motel type keyless lock) keeping it shut. When she turned on the light she thought she saw someone running between her house and her neighbor's house.

The lady was correct. Someone had picked her lock and the only thing keeping him/her out was that hotel/motel slide lock. When they icked the lock, one of the ins fell into a hole and couldn't be turned back to the correct position. Using the key, it is impossible for the pins to slip down that way. Therefore, someone used picks on the lock. This is also why I ask to see the customer's key whenever I unlock a house, so I can test the key and make sure it enters and operates the lock correctly.

After contacting the police to let them know someone had tried breaking into the lady's house the night before, although leaving no jimmy, pry bar marks or broken glass, I then made several more additions to her security. The police were going to make more passes by her house and one of her neighbors is also an officer.

Like I said, this lady is a seniour citizen, requiring a day nurse, mediccations, and is on a fixed income living in a home she and her late husband probably moved into 50 years ago. She does have a son with his own home and family who visits her several times a week, but he's not wealthy either and she simply can't afford the high security lock, so she has to make do with the best she can and, unfortunately, some pimple-faced teeny-bopper or other Blaze/Tobias cult follower, learned through the internet just how to bypass her locks.

I'm just glad he/she screwed up enough that I was able to catch it. If he hadn't gotten those pins caught, and turned the plug back to the right position, it would have never been caught.




]]>Sep 4th 2006 4:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/The idea itself seems intruiging, no mechanics exposed to an outside attack.]]>Sep 12th 2006 7:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Personally, I don't agree with the "what they don't know can't hurt them" philosophy. Why do you think computer security experts announce vulnerabilities when they're discovered? It's so people can take measures to protect themselves against such attacks. Would you rather be left in the dark?

Some choose to take personal security into their own hands. They realize that the police won't always be there when they need help. This is why many support lawful citizens owning firearms. If someone enters my home uninvited while I'm there, they can be considered (by myself and by the law) a threat to my family's safety. In most cases and in most US states, I'm legally justified to use deadly force against the intruder to protect my safety and that of my family. What would you do to protect your family from murder or rape? Use a baseball bat? A kitchen knife? What if the intruder is armed? Or is twice your size? For me, I choose to include a firearm as part of our defense plan.

Also, the comments about Glocks and the firearms "statistics" are not true. If you're not careless, firearms are safer than many other household items. They're only mysterious to those who lack an understanding of how they work. You can learn more about those myths here:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

btw, if the crap really hits the fan, I hope I never have to rely on a police officer like the one in the above post.
]]>Sep 15th 2006 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Sep 22nd 2009 10:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.a1qualitysafesonline.com/ for around 35.00 dollars. it is the Master Lock's exclusive Bump Stop advanced cylinder technology, virtually bump proof and pick proof lock. Search keyword bump lock. need a lock installed in the San Francisco Bat Area try
http://www.a1-locksmith.com/ ]]>Nov 29th 2009 4:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
I woudl have a similar take on premde bump keys. Some restriction on sale, perhaps by professional organization or manufacturers of blanks and lock may be helpful, but ultimately legislation isn't going to stop somone who would steal something from making or obtaining a bump key. The key is so easy to fabricate without any specilaized tools that I don't see where baning the sale will change the supply to anyone who wishes to commit a crime with one.]]>Nov 4th 2006 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
The Today show was just trying to jump on a story that was just starting to hit the UK and wanted to be the first in the US to catch the wave rather than report on why the lock industry fails to protect us. People should know that it doesn't take the world's greatest picker but even a 10 year old can use a bump key can pick a lock.

Thanks for the article]]>Nov 30th 2006 11:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Ads by Google

Bump Keys
Set of 6 most popular keys. Now with Master Lock key!
bumpkeys.jinestudios.com

This add was present at the bottom of this article. Anyone who thinks engadget put us at risk by publishing this is sorely mistaken.]]>Nov 30th 2006 6:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Mar 1st 2007 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Sep 17th 2007 5:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/
Whenever I buy electronic stuff (stereo etc) I always put the boxes out for collection a few houses down the road -- my girlfriend thinks this is horrendously evil.]]>Dec 1st 2006 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Jul 31st 2007 3:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://antibumplocks.com]]>Sep 12th 2007 8:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Sep 24th 2007 6:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/the-lockdown-locked-but-not-secure-part-2/Oct 15th 2007 11:46PM