[EA-3167]

Most locks on most residential facilities are not about security so much as a "tamper evident" seal for insurance purposes.

[postmortembees]

I guarantee you I, or anyone else with ~30m of training can get into 95% of homes without leaving much evidence that the locks were tampered with. House locks are very easy to pick open.

[EA-3167]

Most thieves are not trained in covert entry, they aren't lock pickers, they're desperate addicts looking to get some things to pawn for a fix.

[postmortembees]

Of course. Most thieves break in use the time honored "brick + window" method.

But I was refuting the specific idea that house locks are a tamper evident seal. They are trivially easy to bypass in a tamper evident manner.

[talldatethrow]

If I know my door is locked, and you get in, I can still shoot you since I know I locked it, thus you'll have the tools somewhere near you showing you broke in.

If it's just a code, tons of legal ambiguity comes up. Can a gf shoot her exbf that she gave the keycode to last month?

[jjnoakes]

> Can a gf shoot her exbf that she gave the keycode to last month?

How is this different from a physical key?

[AnnikaL]

If anything, it might be easier to change a keycode than to change a lock.

[talldatethrow]

This a good point, except that I've found that people with keycode locks on door and garages hand out the keycode like candy for some reason.. way more than anyone else hands out physical keys.

[jerlam]

And yet, the universal way to break into homes is with brute force, by smashing a window or kicking the door in.

[Clamchop]

Evidence of what? I can't see how it would prevent fraud, the occupant can damage the "seal" just as well, and a burglary without damage is still a burglary and lock-picking is a thing so it doesn't have much to say about due diligence either.