Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my own
flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch of
new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless that is,
there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a key
(Or worse, given one to their friends).

How is this good security?

tim

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:16:25 PM UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my own
flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch of
new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless that is,
there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a key
(Or worse, given one to their friends).

There are systems which allow the front door to be opened by a multiplicity of different keys, but they can be complicated. The locksmith who fitted the locks in the first place may be able to produce a new pinning for the cylinder which still opens the front door - though often these things are ordered as a complete suite of locks requiring you to go back to the manufacturer armed with permissions signed by anyone who might have an interest and then pay an arm and a leg...
I think I'd just give up on the convenience of having the same key for both doors unless it's something that's ruled out by the tenancy agreement.

On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key. You
could always have two keys, one for each door.

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday 31 July 2013 17:16 tim..... wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.


Nothing is unpickable. If a key exists, a copy can be made. The only factor
is how time consuming it is.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my own
flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch of
new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless that is,
there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a key
(Or worse, given one to their friends).

How is this good security?

It's not. Change your front door lock if in doubt. It's easy to DIY one way
or another.


tim
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key. You
could always have two keys, one for each door.

Well obviously.

But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

If I have to have two key's, I will just drill a hole in the door and fit a
second "B&Q" lock.

tim

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:16:25 PM UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my own
flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch of
new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless that
is,
there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a key
(Or worse, given one to their friends).

There are systems which allow the front door to be opened by a
multiplicity of different keys, but they can be complicated. The locksmith
who fitted the locks in the first place may be able to produce a new
pinning for the cylinder which still opens the front door - though often
these things are ordered as a complete suite of locks requiring you to go
back to the manufacturer armed with permissions signed by anyone who might
have an interest and then pay an arm and a leg...
I think I'd just give up on the convenience of having the same key for
both doors unless it's something that's ruled out by the tenancy
agreement.

I own it on a long lease. I think that I can tell the freeholder where to
go if he tries to make up rules about my door locks where the change affects
no-one else.

Though you are right about the restrictions where it does.

tim

On 31/07/2013 18:34, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key. You
could always have two keys, one for each door.

Well obviously.

But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a problem.

Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2013 18:57, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?

Who could stop anyone who held the key in the past, from having multiple
copies made?

FWIW, if more than one person has ever lived there, it's guaranteed that
there's a spare key somewhere


If the lock is one where specific authorisation is required to get a
copy made, then that does indeed go some way towards stopping there
being any copies out there. Though I am sure many people here could
somehow knock up a replica of some sort that would function, so it is
not a guarantee.

--
Rod

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 18:34, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key. You
could always have two keys, one for each door.

Well obviously.

But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door?

I don't see why not. I'm a long leaseholder (of a two bed flat) I can't see
how the freeholder can reasonably restrict me to only two keys. If I was a
LL (letting to two people) I'd need a third.

If not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock.

Hm,

The MA has recently changed. They couldn't even come up with the proof from
the old MA that the previous leaseholder paid all that was owing. (I've had
to take a risk on that).

I have no faith that if I asked: "How many keys did the previous leaseholder
have authorised?" that I would get a sensible answer.

If that matches the number you have, you don't have a problem.

I agree. I just don't see that I can get there. (Though I admit that I
didn't even consider this option when I posted, so I suppose this would be
the "normal" solution even if it doesn't work for me now)

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:57:16 +0100, Phil L wrote:

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front
door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able
to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised
for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?

Quite. The paper says it's so, so it is. That's the basis of the
horse meat scandle, the logging one and no doubt numerous others.

Who could stop anyone who held the key in the past, from having multiple
copies made?

That depends a bit on the type of key at least as far as going to a
locksmith is concerned. These DPS locks may be tricky to get
duplicate keys made. But probably not impossible if you have a good
story and a not 100% straight lock smith.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Phil L" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:
Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?

Who could stop anyone who held the key in the past, from having multiple
copies made?

Normal key copy places won't copy it (they don't have the blanks)

The authorised places ask for "proof" FSVO proof.



FWIW, if more than one person has ever lived there, it's guaranteed that
there's a spare key somewhere

I have a spare, but if two people lived there (which I suspect) there might
be a third.

tim

On 31/07/13 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying).

Get a new key & cylinder for your front door and keep the old key for
the communal door.



So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a
key (Or worse, given one to their friends).



--
djc

In article ,
polygonum wrote:

If the lock is one where specific authorisation is required to get a
copy made, then that does indeed go some way towards stopping there
being any copies out there. Though I am sure many people here could
somehow knock up a replica of some sort that would function, so it is
not a guarantee.


When I was a student (20 years back now...) our room keys were marked "Do
not duplicate" and where apparantly licenced so blanks couldn't be obtained.


Was fairly well known the the guy in the market who cut keys for a quid
would also cut these one - he just charged a fiver for them :-)

I'd not trust "no one is allowed to copy the key". It'll make things harder
maybe, but near impossible to prevent completely.

Darren

In article , D.M.Chapman
wrote:
In article , polygonum
wrote:

If the lock is one where specific authorisation is required to get a
copy made, then that does indeed go some way towards stopping there
being any copies out there. Though I am sure many people here could
somehow knock up a replica of some sort that would function, so it is
not a guarantee.


When I was a student (20 years back now...) our room keys were marked "Do
not duplicate" and where apparantly licenced so blanks couldn't be
obtained.


Was fairly well known the the guy in the market who cut keys for a quid
would also cut these one - he just charged a fiver for them :-)

I'd not trust "no one is allowed to copy the key". It'll make things
harder maybe, but near impossible to prevent completely.

especially as it was ruled an interference with free trading to restrict
the issue of blanks.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 31/07/2013 18:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:34, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key. You
could always have two keys, one for each door.

Well obviously.

But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a problem.

Colin Bignell


They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 31/07/2013 21:13, charles wrote:
In article , D.M.Chapman
wrote:
In article , polygonum
wrote:

If the lock is one where specific authorisation is required to get a
copy made, then that does indeed go some way towards stopping there
being any copies out there. Though I am sure many people here could
somehow knock up a replica of some sort that would function, so it is
not a guarantee.


When I was a student (20 years back now...) our room keys were marked "Do
not duplicate" and where apparantly licenced so blanks couldn't be
obtained.


Was fairly well known the the guy in the market who cut keys for a quid
would also cut these one - he just charged a fiver for them :-)

I'd not trust "no one is allowed to copy the key". It'll make things
harder maybe, but near impossible to prevent completely.

especially as it was ruled an interference with free trading to restrict
the issue of blanks.

Don't know about that. I look after an office block with 6 suites.
Each has security keys and only one locksmith can get the blanks.

My local, very good, locksmith said he could make a key by starting with
a block of brass & doing it by hand, but it would cost hundreds - and he
wouldn't do it even then.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:34, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and
my own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a
batch of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door
(unless that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key.
You could always have two keys, one for each door.

Well obviously.

But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Colin Bignell


They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

I understood that it was ruled an infringement of free trade to make that
condition. Certainly I have had no difficulty in obtaining duplicates of
apparently "secure keys" from a repautable locksmith.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:34, tim..... wrote:
But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a problem.

Colin Bignell


They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

And for really secure locks, the makers will not release the blanks at
all, and you need to order the key from them by number, in writing, with
the appropriate paperwork.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 31/07/2013 18:57, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?...

Any legitimate locksmith will require you to prove that you are
authorised to have a copy made of a high security key and will refuse if
you can't. Unless there is reason to think that the previous tenant was
into consorting with dodgy locksmiths, it is fairly good protection.

Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2013 21:51, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
....
They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

I understood that it was ruled an infringement of free trade to make that
condition. Certainly I have had no difficulty in obtaining duplicates of
apparently "secure keys" from a repautable locksmith.

I was under the impression that refers to restricted profile keys,
rather than high security keys.

Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2013 22:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

On 31/07/2013 18:57, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?...

Any legitimate locksmith will require you to prove that you are
authorised to have a copy made of a high security key and will refuse
if you can't. Unless there is reason to think that the previous tenant
was into consorting with dodgy locksmiths, it is fairly good protection.

Don't they have to report it? When I was a student we were given a key
to a disused lab to do some work. Tried to get a copy made for
convenience as there was more than one of us, turned out to be a
building master they'd given us - the lock shop bloke said that by
rights, he should have shopped us.


No idea. I've only ever had them cut as the legitimate key holder. One
system required me to present a credit card sized authority card, which
contained the data the locksmith needed to cut the key, rather than the
key itself. Duplicates could not be cut from a key.

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday 31 July 2013 22:05 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 31/07/2013 18:57, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?...

Any legitimate locksmith will require you to prove that you are
authorised to have a copy made of a high security key and will refuse if
you can't. Unless there is reason to think that the previous tenant was
into consorting with dodgy locksmiths, it is fairly good protection.

Or the tenent is a dodgy locksmith :-|


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Wednesday 31 July 2013 22:09 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 31/07/2013 21:51, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
...
They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

I understood that it was ruled an infringement of free trade to make that
condition. Certainly I have had no difficulty in obtaining duplicates of
apparently "secure keys" from a repautable locksmith.

I was under the impression that refers to restricted profile keys,
rather than high security keys.

Colin Bignell

There's alot to be said for card keys or dongle keys - you can program the
lock to renounce all previous keys and effectively have multiple keys that
have their own ID (so any single one can be removed from the system).

Also makes the handling of "master keys" infinitely flexible.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday 31 July 2013 22:05 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 31/07/2013 18:57, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Authority?...

Any legitimate locksmith will require you to prove that you are
authorised to have a copy made of a high security key and will refuse if
you can't. Unless there is reason to think that the previous tenant was
into consorting with dodgy locksmiths, it is fairly good protection.

Or the tenent is a dodgy locksmith :-|

The problem in my case is that all the tenant has to do is hand back one key
fewer than (s)he was given.

As I have no idea how many (s)he was given (and no-one seems to be
officially policing it), I can't tell if (s)he has done that.

As I have already said, starting out with three would not seem at all
unreasonable (nor unlikley).

On 31/07/2013 22:27, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 31 July 2013 22:09 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 31/07/2013 21:51, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
...
They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

I understood that it was ruled an infringement of free trade to make that
condition. Certainly I have had no difficulty in obtaining duplicates of
apparently "secure keys" from a repautable locksmith.

I was under the impression that refers to restricted profile keys,
rather than high security keys.

Colin Bignell

There's alot to be said for card keys or dongle keys - you can program the
lock to renounce all previous keys and effectively have multiple keys that
have their own ID (so any single one can be removed from the system).

Also makes the handling of "master keys" infinitely flexible.

I can see the advantage of card keys where there is a high turnover
rate, such as in an hotel. The industrial estate I used to have my
factories on has contactless key fobs for the night security gates.
Their turnover is not as great and they can charge a hefty deposit for
the fobs.

For flats, I would have thought that the best option was a good quality
electronic key pad system, as I had on an office I used to rent. Each
tenant had their own code, which opened both their office door and the
common door (which could also be released by door phone). The landlord's
agent had to approve each code, so that there were no easy to guess
codes, and programmed them into the system. The multiplicity of codes
meant that none of the keys on the common door pad would show signs of
more use than others.

Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2013 21:51, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/07/2013 18:34, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/2013 17:16, tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and
my own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a
batch of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door
(unless that is, there's only one common door keying)...

More accurately, you won't be able to open both with the same key.
You could always have two keys, one for each door.

Well obviously.

But I'm not going to spend the stupid amount that they want for (a
replacement of) this lock and lose the convenience

Do you have the authority to have new keys cut for your front door? If
not then neither would the previous tenant and you should be able to
find out from the landlord just how many keys have been authorised for
your lock. If that matches the number you have, you don't have a
problem.

Colin Bignell


They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long number
stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks can cut keys,
only with the written authority of the owner.

I understood that it was ruled an infringement of free trade to make that
condition. Certainly I have had no difficulty in obtaining duplicates of
apparently "secure keys" from a repautable locksmith.

My experience has been quite the opposite.

AFAIK the reason isn't profit, but security.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:21:34 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

No idea. I've only ever had them cut as the legitimate key holder. One
system required me to present a credit card sized authority card, which
contained the data the locksmith needed to cut the key, rather than the
key itself. Duplicates could not be cut from a key.

Ditto on the restrictions and method of getting new ones cut.

--

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:08:06 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

The multiplicity of codes meant that none of the keys on the common door
pad would show signs of more use than others.

And the wear/clean buttons problem can be avoided by having a nixie
tube behind each button and moving the numbers about after each use.
Also makes shoulder surfing harder.

I bet the draw back is that as people can't remember and use the the
pattern for the code rather than the code itself, codes (unless
strictly controlled) become simple...

--
Cheers
Dave.

tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.




they are not usually unpickable,they often have a registered slot
pattern which most locksmiths will not copy without authorisation.

In fact often mastered systems are easier to pick because they have
multiple pins per slot which allow differing keys to line them up, which
allows the picker more choices.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless
that is, there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a
key (Or worse, given one to their friends).

How is this good security?

tim

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:38:38 PM UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:16:25 PM UTC+1, tim..... wrote:

Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my own
flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch of
new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless that
is,
there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a key
(Or worse, given one to their friends).

There are systems which allow the front door to be opened by a
multiplicity of different keys, but they can be complicated. The locksmith
who fitted the locks in the first place may be able to produce a new
pinning for the cylinder which still opens the front door - though often
these things are ordered as a complete suite of locks requiring you to go
back to the manufacturer armed with permissions signed by anyone who might
have an interest and then pay an arm and a leg...
I think I'd just give up on the convenience of having the same key for
both doors unless it's something that's ruled out by the tenancy
agreement.

I own it on a long lease. I think that I can tell the freeholder where to
go if he tries to make up rules about my door locks where the change affects
no-one else.

Though you are right about the restrictions where it does.

Ah, right - I was misled by the reference to previous tenants. If you meant that the previous owner had been renting the flat out that just gives one more possibility for someone to have retained a key, and I'd certainly want to change the lock or the cylinder.
Some of the higher security systems require you to have a card with a code that is used to cut the key - you can't cut the key just from another key. This does make it easier to control duplication, but since you didn't mention a card I'm assuming that isn't the case here. In any case it still doesn't necessarily solve the problem of former owners or tenants retaining a legitimately acquired key.

On Thursday 01 August 2013 12:13 Huge wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 2013-08-01, Dave Liquorice wrote:

And the wear/clean buttons problem can be avoided by having a nixie
tube

Nixie tube? Where have you been, Granddad?


Little solari flappers would be more retro - if a tad bulky

(cf London Victoria station boards only a few years ago).

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:08:06 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

The multiplicity of codes meant that none of the keys on the common door
pad would show signs of more use than others.

And the wear/clean buttons problem can be avoided by having a nixie
tube behind each button and moving the numbers about after each use.
Also makes shoulder surfing harder.

I bet the draw back is that as people can't remember and use the the
pattern for the code rather than the code itself, codes (unless
strictly controlled) become simple...

I certainly do that with my 4 digit CC PIN that was the one originally
provided by the bank.

tim

"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:
Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.




they are not usually unpickable,they often have a registered slot pattern
which most locksmiths will not copy without authorisation.

In fact often mastered systems are easier to pick because they have
multiple pins per slot which allow differing keys to line them up, which
allows the picker more choices.

So what's the patentable element then?

The provision of "security" by restricting of copying because of the patent
seem to be a circular argument that doesn't justify the patent ;-(

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:38:38 PM UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:16:25 PM UTC+1, tim..... wrote:

Just moved into my new flat.

It has DPS "High Security" locks which are (presumably) un-pickable.

However, I have one key which own both the communal front door and my
own
flat's door.

I guessing that means that I can't change the cylinder and get a batch
of
new keys as they then wont be able to open the front door (unless that
is,
there's only one common door keying).

So I'm stuck with having to hope that previous tenants haven't kept a
key
(Or worse, given one to their friends).

There are systems which allow the front door to be opened by a
multiplicity of different keys, but they can be complicated. The
locksmith
who fitted the locks in the first place may be able to produce a new
pinning for the cylinder which still opens the front door - though
often
these things are ordered as a complete suite of locks requiring you to
go
back to the manufacturer armed with permissions signed by anyone who
might
have an interest and then pay an arm and a leg...
I think I'd just give up on the convenience of having the same key for
both doors unless it's something that's ruled out by the tenancy
agreement.

I own it on a long lease. I think that I can tell the freeholder where
to
go if he tries to make up rules about my door locks where the change
affects
no-one else.

Though you are right about the restrictions where it does.

Ah, right - I was misled by the reference to previous tenants. If you
meant that the previous owner had been renting the flat out that just
gives one more possibility for someone to have retained a key, and I'd
certainly want to change the lock or the cylinder.
Some of the higher security systems require you to have a card with a code
that is used to cut the key - you can't cut the key just from another key.
This does make it easier to control duplication, but since you didn't
mention a card I'm assuming that isn't the case here. In any case it still
doesn't necessarily solve the problem of former owners or tenants
retaining a legitimately acquired key.

Since starting this I have checked with the company who are authorised to
make copies and their website tells me that they require a letter of
authorisation to prove that I am entitled to ask for a copy.

It doesn't say how I find out who is the authorised person that provides the
letter (nor how they keep their records up-to-date when that person
changes - which in this case of this property it almost certainly has, not
necessarily to someone who knows that they have this responsibility)

On 01/08/2013 08:08, Nightjar wrote:

For flats, I would have thought that the best option was a good quality
electronic key pad system, as I had on an office I used to rent. Each
tenant had their own code, which opened both their office door and the
common door (which could also be released by door phone). The landlord's
agent had to approve each code, so that there were no easy to guess
codes, and programmed them into the system. The multiplicity of codes
meant that none of the keys on the common door pad would show signs of
more use than others.


Which is fine for a small number of offices but as the number of codes
goes up the chance of randomly guessing a correct code goes down.

On 01/08/2013 14:31, Andrew May wrote:
On 01/08/2013 08:08, Nightjar wrote:

For flats, I would have thought that the best option was a good quality
electronic key pad system, as I had on an office I used to rent. Each
tenant had their own code, which opened both their office door and the
common door (which could also be released by door phone). The landlord's
agent had to approve each code, so that there were no easy to guess
codes, and programmed them into the system. The multiplicity of codes
meant that none of the keys on the common door pad would show signs of
more use than others.


Which is fine for a small number of offices but as the number of codes
goes up the chance of randomly guessing a correct code goes down.


With a six digit code, you have a million possible choices. Even if
there are 100 flats, it is going to take a lot of random guesses to find
one code. Then you need to find which of the 100 flats that opens.

Colin Bignell

On 01/08/2013 14:14, tim..... wrote:
....
Since starting this I have checked with the company who are authorised
to make copies and their website tells me that they require a letter of
authorisation to prove that I am entitled to ask for a copy.

It doesn't say how I find out who is the authorised person that provides
the letter (nor how they keep their records up-to-date when that person
changes - which in this case of this property it almost certainly has,
not necessarily to someone who knows that they have this responsibility)

It will almost certainly be whoever is responsible for the common areas.

Colin Bignell

On 1 Aug 2013 11:13:10 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-08-01, Dave Liquorice wrote:

And the wear/clean buttons problem can be avoided by having a nixie
tube

Nixie tube? Where have you been, Granddad?

Listening to his Gramophone


--

Nightjar wrote:
On 31/07/2013 22:27, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 31 July 2013 22:09 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 31/07/2013 21:51, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
...
They might well be security keys. If they have a 'very' long
number stamped on them, only the locksmith who supplied the locks
can cut keys, only with the written authority of the owner.

I understood that it was ruled an infringement of free trade to
make that condition. Certainly I have had no difficulty in
obtaining duplicates of apparently "secure keys" from a repautable
locksmith.

I was under the impression that refers to restricted profile keys,
rather than high security keys.

Colin Bignell

There's alot to be said for card keys or dongle keys - you can
program the lock to renounce all previous keys and effectively have
multiple keys that have their own ID (so any single one can be
removed from the system). Also makes the handling of "master keys"
infinitely flexible.

I can see the advantage of card keys where there is a high turnover
rate, such as in an hotel. The industrial estate I used to have my
factories on has contactless key fobs for the night security gates.
Their turnover is not as great and they can charge a hefty deposit for
the fobs.

For flats, I would have thought that the best option was a good
quality electronic key pad system, as I had on an office I used to
rent. Each tenant had their own code, which opened both their office
door and the common door (which could also be released by door
phone). The landlord's agent had to approve each code, so that there
were no easy to guess codes, and programmed them into the system. The
multiplicity of codes meant that none of the keys on the common door
pad would show signs of more use than others.

The flats I have worked on have a remote fob and a keypad for the main gates
(if applicable) and the for the communal doors. The actual door to each flat
has a "normal" key.

--
Adam

In article ,
charles writes:
In article , D.M.Chapman
wrote:
In article , polygonum
wrote:

If the lock is one where specific authorisation is required to get a
copy made, then that does indeed go some way towards stopping there
being any copies out there. Though I am sure many people here could
somehow knock up a replica of some sort that would function, so it is
not a guarantee.


When I was a student (20 years back now...) our room keys were marked "Do
not duplicate" and where apparantly licenced so blanks couldn't be
obtained.


Was fairly well known the the guy in the market who cut keys for a quid
would also cut these one - he just charged a fiver for them :-)

I'd not trust "no one is allowed to copy the key". It'll make things
harder maybe, but near impossible to prevent completely.

especially as it was ruled an interference with free trading to restrict
the issue of blanks.

A lot of key profiles were notionally protected by patents,
and they expired some years ago so anyone can make them now.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]