What a stupid way to design a panel SK

We all know panel take overs happen all the time why they would design the SK 5808 that only way it can be defaulted is sent back to factory and leaving a client with out protection is beyond me. at least the older panels you could change a chip or use a jumper etc to reset it. Typical stupid engineer thinking.

Reply to
nick markowitz
Loading thread data ...

RHC: Hey, it's no different than the same stupid engineering thinking that designed the hardware lockout feature. Both manufacturers want you to have to buy another board, rather than reuse an existing one again. Designing the old one that way, or putting in an installer lock feature in the newer ones just ensures that profit trumps ethics. What else is new ??

Reply to
tourman

Ot's not Silent Knight's fault someone is dumb enough to pull a fire panel out, ship it to the factory for defaulting and leave the client without protection

Reply to
mleuck

How is that an ethics issue by the factory? It has nothing to do with profiting from the replaced board, it's called S E C U R I T Y

Reply to
mleuck

Some company's have back up boards many do not. In my case A 5700 will handle the30+ points till I get this one back But how many company's would leave no protection ? good question The lock out feature while your responsible for panel I will go for that but then you have the duty to unlock it once your contract is up. and how many will sit there and whine and cry and carry on like little baby's there losing 1 account like its taking food out of there kids mouth. Way too much greed and unprofessional behavior in life safety these days.

Reply to
nick markowitz

RHC: It's very much an ethical issue when companies deliberately put in a feature that has NO redeeming security value and is ONLY used to either make it slightly more expensive to takeover the board, or ensure new homeowners moving in have no access to their fully owned equipment and are not free to chose companies without paying for a new board (changing the installer code is enought to protect anything in the panel that needs protection) Companies that claim it's useful because it further protects their "free systems" from theft are deluding themselves, since any company wishing to ignore contractual terms and do so only has to replace a $50 board to take the system over. The feature is far more often misused than used properly, and alarm manufacturers are comfortable with this, or turn their heads, because it's a win/win situation - they sell more boards and alarmco's continue to demand it thinking it provides more protection than it does, or more likely simply don't giving a damn !

I was approached once by a lawmaker from Denver, Colorado who had studied it, and indicated that he fully agreed this is something that should be changed in law, but of course it went nowhere due to it's relative minor nature in the whole legal scheme of things. It's like selling someone a car and putting a padlock on the hood so you don't have access to your own equipment. If a company wishes to lock a board, they should be compelled to dial in and unlock it once the contract is finished - period ! (and this should be at no cost to the board owner, since THEY chose to do this for their supposed "protection" while under contract)

It's one of those issues that is little known outside our industry, but one that is and should be denounced for what it is! And companies like DSC have even gone so far as to make their newer series 1616 and

1832 panels much more resistant to being unlocked ! Shame on them - money always before ethics !

Nor do I think it will ever change since it's totally industry self serving. But that doesn't make it right !

Reply to
tourman

Lol.... That's not best practice huh?

Reply to
G. Morgan

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.