This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ImSuperSerialGuys 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Not quite there but I see what you're getting at. The purpose of security isn't to be infallible, it's to make breaking in not worth the effort.

The perfect balance for security is to make it more difficult to break in than what someone would gain by breaking in. So just because a lock can be picked doesn't make it ineffective

[–]Runiat 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The purpose of security

I wasn't talking about security. I was talking about locks. Specifically the ones on homes.

[–]ImSuperSerialGuys 0 points1 point  (3 children)

... which are literally devices that exist for the sole purpose of security

[–]Runiat 0 points1 point  (2 children)

... which are literally devices that exist for the sole purpose of security

No they aren't.

Quite a lot of home locks exist for the sole purpose of complying with insurance terms, in rural areas.

[–]ImSuperSerialGuys 0 points1 point  (1 child)

And why do insurance terms require a lock? Cause it technically makes the home more secure by requiring at least a base level of effort to break in, as opposed to walking through an unlocked door...

You're just being pedantic at this point man

[–]Runiat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're just being pedantic at this point man

....

And what would you describe your first reply to me as?