[jontas]

I have not ordered one, but here is how I see it:

It is a step towards what the world will be like at some future point, when everything about your home (and life) is managed from your phone (or some kind of device).

I'm not trying to sound futuristic and sci-fi, but I'm sure we will reach a point where there are no keys, just doors that unlock automatically and open for you based on proximity and identity verification.

Does a Lockitron make total sense for everyone to buy today? Probably not. There are obviously some use cases that do justify the expense, however, I see it as an intermediary step on the path to totally rethinking doors and physical access in general. And if you can afford it, and think it is neat and at least somewhat useful, then why not?

[crucialfelix]

Ubik, pkd :

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 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 you bought this conapt."

...he found the contract. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.

"You discover I'm right," the door said. It sounded smug.

[krapp]

> I see it as an intermediary step on the path to totally rethinking doors and physical access in general.

I don't believe doors and physical access in general need to be rethought, except maybe to improve the security of physical locks themselves. The 'big dumb thing between you and my stuff you'd need a sledgehammer to get past without a key' model has mostly worked for a good long while. (Or, fine, a crooked bit of wire if you're clever.) Why does that need to be disrupted?

[jontas]

I dont think it needs to be disrupted, and even if it did, I dont think Lockitron is that product.

We are moving towards a world where everything is connected, online, and accessible. Doors and keys are not in need of an overhaul, but some day, due to advances in peripheral technologies, having a door unlock automatically is going to just seem obvious. At first it will be something only the newest buildings have, and eventually, old metal keys/locks will be something only the oldest buildings have. Do you believe that doors/locks/keys are going to be unchanged in the next 50 years?

[krapp]

I suppose you're right to a degree when it comes to supermarket doors and some car locks, the idea that things should be so connected is certainly already present, and there's no reason to expect it not to saturate wherever it can. But there would remain real value to the low tech approach for a number of reasons. Physical locks are less expensive than networked locks would be. Networked locks would be subject to the vulnerabilities that come with being connected to the internet and being run by software, whereas physical locks wouldn't. I think Bruce Schneier said 'complexity is the enemy of security' (if not I'm sure I'll be corrected) and the analog stupidity of physical locks is what makes them useful. Although granted, physical locks can be hacked too, and are, I'd submit that the networked variety would likely be no less vulnerable to physical attack, and still more vulnerable to attacks over the network (so, implicitly, less secure.)

A ubiquitous system for locks that somehow can identify you by proximity, can also be used to track your movements and whereabouts. Networked locks could be theoretically controlled from a remote location, leaving someone else to act as, essentially, the systems administrator for your physical access privileges. This is what they do in prisons. Applying the concept of separating someone from direct control over their physical access-space to a large scale, and it looks a bit ominous - at least if this assumes these network locks are also commonplace on cars, houses, hotel rooms, hospital rooms, etc. This is not even considering what happens when power goes out, or the network goes down. Physical locks still work without electrical power, and the tumblers only care about the piece of metal that's currently jammed into the slot and whether it moves the pins properly... principle of least privilege.

I can see this sort of thing becoming somewhat more commonplace but I also see its spread as self-limiting. E-books aren't going to replace physical books, the internet isn't going to replace television, which hasn't replaced radio, which hasn't replaced theatre. In each case, the newer version of the technology does provide their own advantages and enhancements of the medium but not to the degree that the older, less complex version no longer has relevance. The future is never going to be that evenly distributed, this I believe. In a hundred years, some people might be genetically engineered posthuman cyborgs linked to a quantum hivemind, but someone, somewhere, will be living in village of mud and stone. People will still use physical locks because there's no real reason for most people not to. They could theoretically still work in a hundred years. Software doesn't age nearly as well as a steel bar through a door jamb.

[eigenvector]

One of the biggest dangers with software is that vulnerabilities, once discovered, can be exploited remotely or by persons without the necessary knowledge and talent to actually build the exploit themselves.

Nearly all locks can be picked. However, unless you are the target of a major criminal organization or government agency, it is reasonable to expect that your lock will not have to withstand someone who has invested thousands of hours into learning how to pick the most sophisticated locks. With a network-connected device, it only takes one clever fellow to discover the vulnerability and all of a sudden script kiddies everywhere can be deploying it against your lock.

[peterjs]

Personally, I'm looking foward to a future where the display of my phone does not get scratched by the keys in my pocket. It will happen, and it will be a good thing. Admittedly, getting rid of my phone would solve the problem equally well.