The Current State of Smart Locks • Hacker News Board

Re: The Current State of Smart Locks

#51

Post by cybergibbons » Wed, Nov 19, 2014, 3:29 PM UTC

BryanB55 wrote: post #17

emhart wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sorry to fall short of actual physical testing. There are some awesome researchers champing at the bit to get their hands on a collection of these locks, so expect blog posts, conference presentations and papers to start trickling out over the next year or so. Personally, I'm very interested in your experience of living sans key. Do you live with anyone else? Was there any discussion or extended thought process…

Living with no key is great. Just need to remember a 4-8 digit pin code. All I carry now is a key fob for my car. I live with my girlfriend and we each now have our own pin codes on the Yale lock, super easy to use and I've had installed now for 1 year and have not had to change the batteries yet. The auto locking feature is also nice so no one forgets to lock the door, it just locks after about a minute. If I'm expe…

I have one of the Yale locks in the UK and you can enter as many digits as you want before and after the actual combination and it will still work.

Re: The Current State of Smart Locks

#52

Post by patcon » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 9:21 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #32

patcon wrote: post #18

For anyone interested in this space, i recommend looking into ethereum, a bitcoin-like network. There's been lots of talk of "smart property" relating to blockchain technology, and imho, locks are the perfect starter use-case. I mean, locks are all about proving ownership, so what better arena to test the idea of using a cryptographic ledger of ownership. I've spent a little time considering how to port the lockitron…

"I mean, locks are all about proving ownership" I don't think that's true at all. Locks serve two primary purposes: 1. Access control 2. Intrusion detection Neither one is really about ownership, but about allowable use. And particularly neither one is about proving ownership.

> I don't think that's true at all.

Forgive me for saying, but this whole response seems like a confrontational HN-esque way of saying "What about intrusion detection?"

To which I'd say, "Great point! And you're right, that comes more easily for physical locks. Although I think we could do some interesting things with incrementing nonce's for successful and failed attempts to transact with a smart lock design."

Re: The Current State of Smart Locks

#53

Post by ianferrel » Sat, Nov 22, 2014, 8:04 PM UTC

patcon wrote: post #52

ianferrel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I mean, locks are all about proving ownership" I don't think that's true at all. Locks serve two primary purposes: 1. Access control 2. Intrusion detection Neither one is really about ownership, but about allowable use. And particularly neither one is about proving ownership.

> I don't think that's true at all. Forgive me for saying, but this whole response seems like a confrontational HN-esque way of saying "What about intrusion detection?" To which I'd say, "Great point! And you're right, that comes more easily for physical locks. Although I think we could do some interesting things with incrementing nonce's for successful and failed attempts to transact with a smart lock design."

I thought your original comment was misguided. I think there are cool and interesting things happening with blockchain technology that are related to ownership, and that are based on locks. But the fact that some new technology touches both doesn't mean that traditional locks do.

"Ownership" is a legal concept. A lock doesn't prove ownership in any way. The person with the keys to a car or a house isn't the owner of it. The person listed on the pink slip/deed is.

I started out saying that locks are just about access control, then remembered the old "locks keep honest people out" adage, and added "intrusion detection" to the list.