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

321–330 of 367 posts

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

#321

Post by _cs2017_ »

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…

From the article:

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

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

#322

Post by looperhacks »

criley2 wrote: post #260
hugi wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

America is not authoritarian so much as "pro-ownership" The idea that the owner of a building couldn't perform maintenance as necessary is shocking!

The thought that someone could enter the place that holds everything I own is more shocking to me. If my landlord wants to enter my flat, he can ask me and I'll let them in - I can't make sure that my landlord doesn't enter my flat.

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

#323

Post by HEHENE »

criley2 wrote: post #261
vraivroo wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not true in California. I had a landlord who wanted to enter all apartments to inspect for evidence of pets (someone had seen a cat inside the building) and I told them exactly where they could shove it.

(Paraphrased from CA Civ Code 1954)

A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:

- In case of emergency.

- To make necessary or agreed repairs, exhibit the property, or perform move in/out inspections.

- When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

- Pursuant to court order.

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

#324

Post by jfk13 »

darkpuma wrote: post #311
sachdevap wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "This is curious. The person is able to operate a key, but is unable to enter a physical code on a keypad?" That doesn't seem too implausible to me. If you thrust your key at the lock but miss... you scratch the lock maybe. Not a big deal, you can retry. But if you thrust your finger at the keypad, you might miss and hit the wrong key. Okay, so try again right? Just the same as the physical lock. Except the key onl…

Having helped my 93 year old parent with comparable issues on a number of occasions, I can vouch for the validity of this.

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

#325

Post by teddyh »

henryaj wrote: post #176
Waterluvian wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My wife decided to add insult to this injury by spreading marmite all around the inside of the letter box." This was the part where you lost my support. That's a bit too petty.

The landlord stole £600 off this guy... but the Marmite thing is too much somehow?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

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

#326

Post by SEJeff »

friedegg wrote: post #253
SEJeff wrote: post #182

Leslie Carhart, a relatively well known infosec community person posted about this: https://tisiphone.net/2019/01/28/security-things-to-consider... Turns out she was right... https://twitter.com/CharlesDardaman/status/11016265103336734...

I've been following her adventure in this area. She kind of had to become an expert on it quickly when her own apartment decided they were switching to one of these systems, and there was no opt-out short of moving.

Same. I've followed her awhile because she's amusing and generally quite sensible. She was absolutely right to be scared of these.

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

#327

Post by PyroLagus »

arethuza wrote: post #122
setquk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did this as well after having a couple of snooping landlords. Also it's empowering. One rental I had, prior to the tenancy deposit protection scheme I had a serial con artist landlord. At the end of the tenancy, he billed my entire £600 deposit return to three companies he owned. One for gardening, one for cleaning and one for maintenance. This made it difficult for a claim to be placed upon him. This was without e…

I experienced stuff like that from a couple of landlords while I was a student - one of the reasons I was quite happy to buy my first flat at 23 (mind you - that was a long time ago). Edit: I almost attacked one landlord when I found someone rummaging in a cupboard at night! Landlord was quite indignant when we pointed out he couldn't come and go as he pleased.

That's probably a great way to get shot, especially in the US. Not only is sneaking into a tenants place (at night of all times) an asshole move, likely illegal, and a clear abuse of power, but it's also such an incredibly stupid thing to do if you value your life.

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

#329

Post by secabeen »

0xffff2 wrote: post #222
criley2 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loc…

I don't think there's any state that allows you to change the locks and not give the landlord access.

I've rented an over-the-garage studio in the past, and the landlord came in one time without notice when I was away because the supply line to the toilet burst and there was water dripping from the garage ceiling. That's the sort of emergency we're talking about here, where a landlord needs immediate access, and any delay will cause additional structural damage.

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

#330

Post by rexpop »

costcopizza wrote: post #288
xamuel wrote: post #246

From Philip K. Dick's "Ubik" (1969): The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when y…

Finely placed, what a book! This passage made me laugh out loud.

Absurd, wasn't it, even ten years ago?
Post reply on HN