Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 367 posts

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#221

Post by sailfast »

hugi wrote: post #186
criley2 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI for Americans, it is generally illegal to change your locks and not provide the owner (or agent aka landlord) with a copy. It's their property, not yours, and depending on state/lease they have the right to have the locks drilled/replaced at YOUR expense because you are not allowed to lock an owner out of their property. There are only a few US states which have laws permitting tenants from changing locks and not…

In Iceland, if the owner of a rented apartment would request key access to his tenants apartment, well… That would be considered "batshit crazy". But it probably comes down to cultural differences, America is very authoritarian.

I think you might be conflating our current executive for the rest of America, which is 50 independent states operating together with a Federal government. Each state has its own way of doing things, and they're all different.

Recent Federal pushes into authoritarian areas, while an indicator that things are moving in that direction, do not make the country as a whole "Authoritarian", let alone VERY authoritarian.

We do tend to lean towards protection for owners of property, rather than renters of property (citation needed? In many states there are STRONG protections for non-owners even those squatting on land that is not theirs) That also severely limits the rights of the government to access the property without cause. That seems... decidedly _not_ authoritarian? But certainly skewed towards ownership.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#222

Post by 0xffff2 »

criley2 wrote: post #175
colek42 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need to get in a house you own in an emergency that could cost 100's of thousands of dollars why wouldn't you just break a window, or call a locksmith? I don't think the tenant would be responsible for these damages unless the incident was caused by their negligence.

I'm not a lawyer but in many states these liability claims go through a system which determines the % of liability for each party. A tenant illegally locking their landlord out and causing delay of several hours for a time-sensitive emergency would almost assuredly get a lot more % liability blame than a tenant who properly gave their landlord a copy of the key and who was able to give access to the plumber immediate…

>A tenant illegally locking their landlord out...

That's not the question at hand at all though. The question is what kind of liability you incur by legally locking your landlord out.

IANAL, but I'd guess that if you change the locks in a state where it's not legal to do so you're totally hosed in terms of liability. I have no idea how liable and to what degree renter's insurance would cover you if you change the locks in a state that guarantees your right to do so.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#223

Post by sailfast »

lovich wrote: post #217
thieving_magpie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feudal and Authoritarian eh? Certainly not being dramatic over differing interpretations of property rights.

A:the poster didn't mention feudalism B: >differing interpretations of property rights The American interpretation is authoritarian. Just because it has a negative connotation doesn't make it untrue. The landlords are renting out a dwelling for someone, and because they are the authority of that land they get to enforce rules on who has access to it. That is authoritarian

> But it probably comes down to cultural differences, America is very authoritarian.

That has nothing to do with the property owner but "America" based on my read, but I do appreciate this interpretation of the OP. If that's their meaning, I could see why the word comes up.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#224

Post by bilbo0s »

est31 wrote: post #26
pjc50 wrote: post #23

The comments seem to be missing the two key aspects: accessibility and surveillance. The smart lock requires you to have a charged, working smartphone that you can use in order to get into your own apartment. One of the claimants is 93 and lacks the manual dexterity to do that. On top of that, smart locks can report when you enter and exit your home to the landlord; and, if under the landlord control, can provide oth…

> charged, working smartphone Not just that, you also have to install a proprietary piece of software onto the phone from a third party and accept their TOS. > can provide other people with a pseudo-legitimate access to it I think in the news story the smart locks were only installed on the front door not on the doors to the homes. If the landlord installed them on the doors for the homes as well, that would be very…

>and accept their TOS...

Money quote.

People aren't thinking ahead here about what this opens you up to with respect to privacy loss. Think about the permissions on your phone such an app could ask for in the future. Now consider that if you don't grant them, you could potentially not get into your apartment.

Smart locks are a cancer. We should cut them out early.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#226

Post by bluGill »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #102
CaptainZapp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Property of X, not to be copied without permission" Not even that. The keys I was referring to have serial numbers and the blanks are strictly controlled. Only the owner of said serial numbers (usually represented by a card) can order copies directly from the manufacturer or their designated agents. Normal key copy shops wouldn't even have the blanks to furnish copies. I don't think that it's totally impossible to c…

Back in my university days they would only give us one key to a room that was designated for our club. They had the special blanks with the second set of teeth on the inside. I just found "normal" blanks with the same cross section, whipped up the tooth profile and a holding fixture in some pirated CAD program and took a thumb drive and the blanks down to the machine shop during lab hours.

Anyone who knows how to use a machine shop can duplicate any key. For most keys there are specific machines that don't require skill to operate that duplicate it. The skill required to duplicate the other keys, combined with the "do not duplicate" stamp on the other keys means that such keys are rarely duplicated.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#227

Post by ginko »

TomMarius wrote: post #181
ascagnel_ wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We changed the locks originally because we caught him in the place doing an inspection unannounced. All our clothes had been gone through and the computer turned on. Funny sounding inspection. That may be a criminal act in your jurisdiction. My local laws allow the landlord access, but the landlord needs to provide 48h notice of the inspection (with a list of specific exceptions for emergency work, mostly around pl…

Entirely legal in EU, btw

That's not true. In Austria at least, a landlord certainly can't enter a rented-out apartment unannounced.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#228

Post by epanchin »

londons_explore wrote: post #79
sc11 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the ability to immediately remove previous tenants access to the home This doesn't really require a smart lock. In Germany it's common to replace the lock immediately once you rent a place and put the original lock back in when you move out. This prevents the landlord, previous tenants and whoever else might still have keys from entering without your permission.

Replacing locks is typically very expensive unless you have the expertise to do it yourself though? One can easily pay £500 ($700 USD) to change the locks on a home in the UK.

Most locks are very easy to replace... with the help of YouTube anyone could change a standard lock. I’ve done it everywhere I’ve lived at a cost of £3-10 a lock.

Re: Tenants win right to physical keys over smart locks from landlords

#229

Post by peeters »

Gaelan wrote: post #126
pjc50 wrote: post #23

The comments seem to be missing the two key aspects: accessibility and surveillance. The smart lock requires you to have a charged, working smartphone that you can use in order to get into your own apartment. One of the claimants is 93 and lacks the manual dexterity to do that. On top of that, smart locks can report when you enter and exit your home to the landlord; and, if under the landlord control, can provide oth…

> The smart lock requires you to have a charged, working smartphone that you can use in order to get into your own apartment. The landlord claimed (about half way down the article) that there was some sort of code that could be entered to open the door with no phone. Is that not the case?

Yeah that's a very material piece of the puzzle that seems intentionally buried:

> Lisa Gallaudet, the landlords' attorney, said the smart lock was on a single door and that tenants were able to enter a numeric code to get in and didn't need an app. They'd also been offered codes they could enter without a phone.

Whether that's an alternative depends on the implementation. If it's a code unique to the tenant that goes through the same backend, then the same privacy argument applies. If it's a static code for any tenant, their whole argument falls apart. Either way, if true, bringing up the whole part about the elderly tenant not being able to operate a smartphone is just dishonest.

Post reply on HN