Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants • Hacker News Board

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#101

Post by Nerdfest » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

BlackFly wrote: post #96

regularfry wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, a tube of superglue has a similar effect on a dumb lock.

Pushing buttons doesn't scream vandalism like inserting glue into a lock does. As a less vandalism like attack, consider when your drunk neighbours attempts to enter your apartment instead of their own. The security "feature" of a lock out is just an easily triggerable denial of service attack.

I like doing it to corporate security folks after they try to dictate it in authentication systems. They usually seem to understand after it's done to them.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#102

Post by noobiemcfoob » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

Faaak wrote: post #99

noobiemcfoob wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you just don't understand the viewpoint of a landlord. If I have to coordinate service to fix the waterheater or something but I live 3 towns over, it's a lot easier to give a technician a temporary password to the property in a set time window. /To do this requires a good relationship with your tenants and technicians

You can also give the technician the property's renter's phone number and let themselves coordinate.

You are greatly overestimating the amount of energy and time the average tenant will put into fixing anything in the property. I wish I could count on them to help in coordinating.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#103

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #74

privateSFacct wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breach of contract? Huh? Most tenants do not have "audit trail" requirements in their contracts and their existing physical locks don't provide one. I always wonder if the folks making legal claims on hn actually practice law - the arguments are often nonsensical. Or maybe this type of logic is why law seems so backwards to folks

> Most tenants do not have "audit trail" requirements in their contracts and their existing physical locks don't provide one. No, but the contract was signed at a time when physical locks were the only norm and the security and safety characteristics of a physical lock can be considered to be implied by that contract. [For example a typical rental contract does not say "the landlord will maintain a working and suitab…

Landlord here. My lease doesn't specify the type of lock, nor do states where I rent property require that I disclose smart locks nor provide an audit trail of remote access to the lock. I am only required to provide "quiet enjoyment of the property" and provide reasonable notice if access is required (24 hours notice, which I provide via email and text). That said, I don't use smart locks with my properties. They're a pain in the ass from a reliability standpoint, and I prefer more reliable mechanical locks (Kwikset SmartKey, which allows for rapid re-keying when turning over the property).

> I think that the perspective that [the addition of] a remote unlock facility without an audit trail compromises the security and safety of a physical lock and thus breaks the implied contract is a perfectly reasonable argument, especially given the prevalence of general industry failure (known vulnerabilities in specific models) in this area.

While the argument can be entertained, housing statute provides for no such requirements (providing an audit trail of smart lock activity to tenants). I'm happy to run it by my attorney for funsies if you're interested in going down the rabbit hole, but I'm confident the use of smart locks, as well as not providing access control data to tenants, is entirely compliant with housing statute (and I have read all housing statute for the states I operate in).

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#104

Post by skrause » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

cmg wrote: post #80

adenhoed wrote: post #73

In The Netherlands you have the right to replace the locks with your own locks, as long as you can re-install the original lock once you move out. How is that arranged in the US?

Do you need to provide your landlord with a copy of the key to your new lock? In the US, it's standard for a rental agreement and/or state law to specify that the landlord can enter your property with 24 hours notice even if you're not there, or to enter immediately in case of an emergency.

In Germany the landlord isn't even allowed to keep a copy of the key for the original lock, so obviously you don't have to give them a key of your own lock.

All clauses in contracts that require you to give a key to the landlord are automatically void.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#105

Post by notatcomputer68 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #60

rlpb wrote: post #45

Clearly it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a lower standard of safety and security than a non-smart lock. I don't think landlords would attempt to argue that principle. The argument from them will be that smart locks do not regress security and safety. Given the widespread and well known security problems with IoT devices across the industry, I think it'd be reasonable to demand assurances on this. For example, an a…

Traditional locks are more like suggestions, and have a well known attack called "lockpicking", that is easy to learn. I doubt smart locks will be less secure than that. Still leaves concern for DOS and privacy attacks.

Most people don't know lockpicking so while you are right in principle this will change things in practice.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#106

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

telesilla wrote: post #89

apexalpha wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For home use I have yet to see a device that make any sense. Slightly off-topic but I have a thermostat that only turns on when my phone (or me) is on the way home and it automatically turns it off when I leave my home. It saves me _considerable_ amount on my heating bill, especially since I'm not home on a regular schedule and often don't know until hours in advance.

I'm also a proponent of smart thermostats. It's a godsend to be able to have the heating turned up automatically before waking, and as I'm getting home. I have no regrets whatsoever although of course, I'm concerned about my presence data being available to the company running the tech. But I would never put in a smart lock - I see no benefit whatsoever.

And my no1. argument against this is the same as against almost every other IoT device - this heating business should be between your thermostat and your phone. It should not go through third party servers and cloud services.

Smart devices are fine for me. Using them as an excuse to turn a product into a service isn't.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#107

Post by rlpb » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #103

rlpb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most tenants do not have "audit trail" requirements in their contracts and their existing physical locks don't provide one. No, but the contract was signed at a time when physical locks were the only norm and the security and safety characteristics of a physical lock can be considered to be implied by that contract. [For example a typical rental contract does not say "the landlord will maintain a working and suitab…

Landlord here. My lease doesn't specify the type of lock, nor do states where I rent property require that I disclose smart locks nor provide an audit trail of remote access to the lock. I am only required to provide "quiet enjoyment of the property" and provide reasonable notice if access is required (24 hours notice, which I provide via email and text). That said, I don't use smart locks with my properties. They're…

I'm not making any claims about statute. I'm talking about contract law, which is rather separate (except when a contract is modified by statute, which as we both agree isn't the case here).

Ask your lawyer to explain implied terms of a contract, what implied terms might exist in your contract with your tenants with respect to expectations of the provision and maintenance of things such as locks that were present at the start of the tenancy, and what obligations you may have to maintain the same level of security and safety that existed at the time the contract was signed.

Your lawyer will most likely tell you that you can't _reduce_ the security of the locks, with the baseline being something between what you implied that you would provide at the start of a tenancy and what is the norm for tenancies of the same type, and that whether or not the addition of a remote unlock facility does so or not depends on the specific circumstances that only a court can determine.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#108

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #10

lordnacho wrote: post #2

Is it impossible to do this safely? Just like with my car, it would be really convenient when holding kids and a load of their stuff to not have to fish out the keys. I suppose there's the issue of your landlord locking you out if they're unhappy with something, but surely that is not purely a technological issue.

In theory, yes, it's possible to do this safely. But offhand I can think of several horror stories about smart locks, and no good stories. The tech just seems absurdly immature at this point. And this product, in particular, is apparently known for glitching and not working, so...

The tech is fine, in theory.

The problem of those locks - or really, almost any IoT device - is that they're connected to a third-party service. This creates risk of abuse, remote hacking, remote bricking (e.g. when the vendor decides to thank everyone for the incredible journey), breach of privacy and ties user into a hostile relationship with the vendor, because the device isn't really a product anymore, but a service.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#109

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #107

toomuchtodo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlord here. My lease doesn't specify the type of lock, nor do states where I rent property require that I disclose smart locks nor provide an audit trail of remote access to the lock. I am only required to provide "quiet enjoyment of the property" and provide reasonable notice if access is required (24 hours notice, which I provide via email and text). That said, I don't use smart locks with my properties. They're…

I'm not making any claims about statute. I'm talking about contract law, which is rather separate (except when a contract is modified by statute, which as we both agree isn't the case here). Ask your lawyer to explain implied terms of a contract, what implied terms might exist in your contract with your tenants with respect to expectations of the provision and maintenance of things such as locks that were present at…

Sent this link to my attorney, interested to hear what I get back. Honestly though, if a tenant raised the issue with me prior to signing a lease, I likely wouldn't rent to them as long as I had other tenants to consider. If the issue was raised after they signed the lease, I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time or not renew their lease when it came up for renewal. Being expensive to service is a trait I can legally discriminate against, and is not protected by fair housing laws.

I can appreciate the concerns, but not to the point where I'm going to waste time litigating it. It's a public policy issue that needs to be addressed.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#110

Post by rlpb » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #109

rlpb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making any claims about statute. I'm talking about contract law, which is rather separate (except when a contract is modified by statute, which as we both agree isn't the case here). Ask your lawyer to explain implied terms of a contract, what implied terms might exist in your contract with your tenants with respect to expectations of the provision and maintenance of things such as locks that were present at…

Sent this link to my attorney, interested to hear what I get back. Honestly though, if a tenant raised the issue with me prior to signing a lease, I likely wouldn't rent to them as long as I had other tenants to consider. If the issue was raised after they signed the lease, I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time or not renew their lease when it came up…

> I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time...

This would be accurate, but depending on the terms of the contract the tenant may have no obligation to do so, and you would still have an obligation to provide the same quality of lock, secure under the same reasonable threat models, as what was present at the time the contract was signed. In other words, it may be that you would not be entitled to force a smart lock [that adds extra things that compromise the security of the implied threat model such as remote unlock] on the tenant, just as you would not be entitled to remove the lock entirely.

> ...or not renew their lease when it came up for renewal. Being expensive to service is a trait I can legally discriminate against, and is not protected by fair housing laws.

No argument there.