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

261–270 of 367 posts

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

#261

Post by criley2 »

vraivroo wrote: post #212
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…

It's also not legal for landlords to enter other people's homes at will simply because they own it.

With a 24 hour notice (or 48), yes it is legal. They can post notice and come by merely to inspect the state of the property.

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

#262

Post by dvtrn »

sjwright wrote: post #148
heavenlyblue wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop with this Christian ethic? It's not always reasonable to present the other cheek. The guy knows perfectly well what he's doing. If not treated badly, the next story he's going to be telling his mates is "how smart he was at getting that deposit for free from one of his tenants". There are too many ways to get away with a crime.

I think you need to read my post again, I'm not talking about real ethics or so-called Christian ethics. I'm talking about doing what's in your selfish best interest. Put simply, don't do things that can be used against you by your enemy.

Maybe it's my hyper-legal American sentiments (pardon the joke at the expense of America's litigious culture, if that's not your particular breed of sardonic humor), but I'm in full agreement here and a little surprised at some of the comments waving this off as anything other than something that would result in justifiable legal-reprisal, if the landlord really wanted to mess with people.

But again, that's probably (very most likely) just the result of me existing in a hyper-litigious culture where In pari delicto is very much a thing.

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

#263

Post by jcomis »

intopieces wrote: post #242
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. When you say “The smart lock,” are you referring to the one in this story? The article mentions that this smart lock, which led to a common area, had a keypad: “Lisa Gallaudet, the landlords' attorney, said the smart lock was on a single door and that tenants were able to enter a numeric code t…

A physical key may require more dexterity for you, but maybe not for the claimant.

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

#264

Post by heavenlyblue »

n4r9 wrote: post #215
heavenlyblue wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop with this Christian ethic? It's not always reasonable to present the other cheek. The guy knows perfectly well what he's doing. If not treated badly, the next story he's going to be telling his mates is "how smart he was at getting that deposit for free from one of his tenants". There are too many ways to get away with a crime.

Right, but now he's telling his mates about how his absolute arsehole of a tenant spread marmite on his letterbox for no reason whatsoever. He still has a story, except this one just makes tenants look evil.

Yeah, but let’s be honest - if he does mention the deposit though - his mates will quickly understand why the marmite ended in his letterbox.

So in the end we’re not giving any ideas to other people that their actions will have no repercussions.

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

#265

Post by aidenn0 »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #51
Y_Y wrote: post #5

Most house locks are trivial to pick in about 30 seconds, and what I've seen of "smart" locks isn't much better. I think if you were really serious about preventing intruders (rather than discouraging opportunism) you need alarms and cameras and someone with a big stick.

Aren't security locks common over there? The typical night latch (Yale lock) is super easy to pick, but it wouldn't be easy to get UK insurance without a 5 or 7 lever Chubb lock, or one of the newer security locks. So pretty much everywhere has one - and quite often both. Newer doors tend to have multiple bolts in three places, operated by the single security key. Just a night latch might be used for internal doors,…

I'm in the US and I have never lived in a dwelling with any lock more secure than a Yale lock. My parents did just install a security lock, but I don't think they even get a discount on their insurance for it.

Where I live currently (Southern California) ranch houses (i.e. ground-floor only) are so common that anyone with a rock can get into your house pretty easily, so a more secure lock might not be worth it.

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

#266

Post by icebraining »

thrower123 wrote: post #82
icebraining wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who pays for the broken door?

If it is really an emergency (fire, heat failure, plumbing emergency, etc), not kicking down the door will cost far more than the $200 that a new door costs.

Apparently everyone decided I was proposing letting it all burn down. I was only wondering if, by letting the landlord have a key who could be used in an emergency, the tenants where reducing the risk of being on the hook for those extra $200. Of course the emergency must be dealt with.

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

#267

Post by bluGill »

aidenn0 wrote: post #249
bluGill wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the vast majority of the US, there is no law against businesses duplicating keys stamped with "do not duplicate" which means it's usually not too hard to find a shop that will do so.

That depends. You are legally correct. Most shops when seeing a do not duplicate key will do some checking to see if you should be allowed to duplicate the key (but there is no standard here), compared to any other key which they will duplicate no questions asked.

Also some "secure" keys don't have any blanks. Most shops don't have the ability to duplicate them. You can still get them copied, but you need a skilled machinist at considerably more cost.

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

#268

Post by daveFNbuck »

sachdevap wrote: post #251
daveFNbuck wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tenant who isn't able to operate a smartphone may also be unable to remember and/or physically enter a numeric code.

This is curious. The person is able to operate a key, but is unable to enter a physical code on a keypad? As for remembering the code, keeping a piece of paper with the code is no different from keeping a key. To clarify my position, I am not in favor of the app for privacy reasons, and prefer the physical lock and key. But it isn't clear to me how far the dexterity argument goes.

In the same way that it seems like someone who could use a key could also use a keypad, it seems that someone who could use a keypad could also use a smartphone. At least one of these two logical steps is broken.

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

#269

Post by daveFNbuck »

kelnos wrote: post #254
daveFNbuck wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tenant who isn't able to operate a smartphone may also be unable to remember and/or physically enter a numeric code.

Remembering can be replaced with a piece of paper with the code written on it. That's not any more onerous than being required to carry a key around. And a key generally requires more dexterity to operate than a keypad. I think vision issues might be a valid complaint, since you can usually operate a key by feel; harder to do that with a keypad, especially in the dark.

I don't think we know the precise nature of this guy's limitations, so it's hard to say why he has the dexterity to use a key but not a smartphone. A keypad seems to me to be more similar to using a smartphone than using a key.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

intopieces wrote: post #255
sachdevap wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does look like a privacy win to me. Isn't it?

The smart lock could be operated without identification, using a code. It’s not clear to me that this code was unique per user. This does not look like a privacy win to me. It looks like a good precedent that will aid in a privacy court battle in the future.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN