car security

[Gibber]

Which brings me to Master Gibber. In a word, sir, no. I shall not pass on my knowledge, as much of this is not readily available to members of the public.

 

I did say the methods that were widely available.

[Sherlock]

To do so might be viewed by my senior Officers as straying across a line I have always strived to avoid. This is widely accepted by members herein, and I would ask you to do likewise. If these methods ARE widely available, one would hardly require my services in obtaining such knowledge. I would, therefore, direct you to Masters Page and Brin's splendidly useful search engine (I attribute this to the creators, rather than the current owners, for the avoidance of doubt or ccontroversy).

 

The issue of pedantry arose after Master Caster, Master EM and I discussed in our respective posts the issue of "breaking into" vehicles. That Master Peat felt the necessity to attempt to infer our stupidity or criminality through his quite redundant post, led me to apply the maxim quoted previously and label the post as pedantic. I stand by this assertion, sir, and have fully explained my reasons for doing so. Master Peat attempted to state, quite categorically, that there is a difference between breaking into a vehicle and gaining unlawful entry. If you read my previous posts, you will see I have covered this point. However, I shall do so again, for your benefit.

 

If a vehicle, domicile, suitcase, shed or ANY lockfast article or dwelling is secured by the owner, and thereafter said security is overcome by another, by any means - including the true key, if this has been stolen for this purpose, then this is breaking in. However, you may break in to a property, dwelling, etc, with the permission of the owner. This is NOT unlawful, yet it IS still breaking in. If my parents (God bless them! ) lock themselves out of their well secured home, and the only means of gaining entry for, say, an Officer attending to assist them, is to break a window and open the latch, do

as to gain entry, this IS breaking in, however this is NOT unlawful. I cannot continue repeating this point without appearing condescending, myself. (I may already have done so, in which case, and you have been affected by this, you can call the helpline on "0800 I am a sensitive soul." Thank you.)

 

Therefore Master Peat's assertive and authoritative post on the matter was incorrect, redundant and pedantic.

 

I cannot be more clear, and Watson - in a rare moment - concurs.

 

Now, back to my newly purchased novel, and a mug of (yes, Master Rider! ) strongest Punjana.

 

Your humble servant.

[Gibber]

So we've eliminated the impossible

 

that there are no generally widely known, or no genuine instructions on the web (therefore also widely known) about getting into a car.

 

that Sherlock is unaware of these techniques (he is after all aware of very rare and not widely known techniques of ingress, he must be aware of the common ones readily available on the web and a staple of his line of work).

 

The truth that remains is

 

Sherlock and indeed the police in general are actually not of the opinion that it would be altruistic to advertise these techniques and that there is probably a lot of validity to SP's complaint about making techniques of car breaking more readily available than they already are. Which I have to say does actually sound like common sense.

[Gibber]

Master Peat attempted to state, quite categorically, that there is a difference between breaking into a vehicle and gaining unlawful entry. If you read my previous posts, you will see I have covered this point. However, I shall do so again, for your benefit.

 

I understood the point when SP made it, which was before you commented on the point, unless you're referring to another thread or a deleted post.

[Sherlock]

Master Gibber,

 

You have made an assumption, sir, and one not based on the available facts. If you are unable to find any reference to methods of breaking into vehicles online, I am delighted, as this removes the likelihood that all and sundry may gain access to such knowledge, and a small percentage thereafter put this to nefarious use. To wit, this makes our vehicles just as secure as they were before we started.

 

However, the original post stated that there WAS a method available (the "article" referred to) which allowed a person other than the owner to gain entry to a lockfast and secured vehicle, without the true key, using only a mobile phone. If such were true, this WOULD be of concern to me, both personally and professionally - and to others, I am sure - as this COULD be widely available and, if so, would only increase the likelihood of persons falling victim to done unscrupulous pilferer, armed with this knowledge and a mobile phone. I would submit that to publicise and discuss this issue, and to enquire further into the initial post - as some members attempted - WOULD be in the public interest. Your argument would, therefore, appear to be self-defeating.

 

Your humble servant.

[Sherlock]

Master Gibber,

 

Sir, you do not appear to understand my point, which followed Master Peat's post. There IS no difference between breaking into a vehicle, whether lawfully or unlawfully. His post is incorrect, sir.

 

Your humble servant.

 

Post scriptum

 

Amended, through a misunderstanding, now rectified. My apologies, sir.

 

However, you have - once again - made a rather large assumption. I have explained MY reasons for not disclosing the methods, of which I am aware. However, you then go on to state "and the Police...". Sir, I go to great pains

to stress, regularly and at length, that I do NOT speak for the Police, nor for any other of my colleagues. Therefore, unless you have made formal enquiry of the Police and been rebuffed, your post is quite incorrect, and appears to be merely taking an opportunity to "knock" them. If it were left to me, and I felt the individual MIGHT benefit from such knowledge, I might pass this on, on a case by case basis, with due regard to the merits and possible outcome. However, in truth, I cannot think of a single instance, in my entire career, where this would have been the case, and to impart such knowledge would, I am certain, very possibly be contrary to Police Regulations, by which I am

bound, at all times, to act.

[Gibber]

If you are unable to find any reference to methods of breaking into vehicles online, I am delighted, as this removes the likelihood that all and sundry may gain access to such knowledge, and a small percentage thereafter put this to nefarious use.

 

No this was listed under impossible, namely, it is possible to find such widely available methods.

[Gibber]

Sir, you do not appear to understand my point, which followed Master Peat's post. There IS no difference between breaking into a vehicle, whether lawfully or unlawfully. His post is incorrect, sir.

 

I think SP was making the same point but with a terminology that you don't share. I don't think he was pointing out that unlawfully breaking in to something is illegal.

 

As to my computer's hamster, I'm running a 30% overclock which although lawful, has invalidated Intel's warranty.

[Sherlock]

Master Gibber,

 

He stated that there was a difference between breaking into a vehicle and gaining access lawfully. His implication was that those of us using this terminology were incorrect. I have demonstrated that there is not a difference, and that it is he who is incorrect.

 

His point and mine are quite different... after all, I am right and he is not! (Oh, do be quiet, Watson! Hubris? Moi?! The very idea! )

 

Your humble servant

[Gibber]

However, the original post stated that there WAS a method available (the "article" referred to) which allowed a person other than the owner to gain entry to a lockfast and secured vehicle, without the true key, using only a mobile phone. If such were true, this WOULD be of concern to me, both personally and professionally - and to others, I am sure - as this COULD be widely available and, if so, would only increase the likelihood of persons falling victim to done unscrupulous pilferer, armed with this knowledge and a mobile phone. I would submit that to publicise and discuss this issue, and to enquire further into the initial post - as some members attempted - WOULD be in the public interest.

 

So only the initial case of a mobile phone being used to break into a car would be deserving of publicity not any of the other methods we have both found widely available on the web?

[Sherlock]

As I do not post here as any formal representative, to gain an authoritative answer to your question, I once again suggest that you direct it to the relevant authorities.

 

I do believe, though, that my colleagues regularly petition members of the public not to leave their vehicles unlocked, or to leave valuables within, or in plain sight. It may be that the formal answer to your question would be that, in doing so, they are attempting to publicise and address this issue. It is not for me to say, or presume. Merely an observation.

 

Your humble servant.

[Sherlock]

By the way, in this day and age, with side airbags and the like, any would-be pilferer attempting some if the methods shown online are, quite literally, playing with death or serious injury...

 

Your humble servant

[Gibber]

I'm not knocking the police, I said it was common sense to not publicise such methods which seems to be their policy anyway, and now seems to be your opinion in all but one specific case involving a mobile phone, and even that is on a 'might' and 'could' basis and invokes no precedent for doing so from your entire career.

 

I would therefore say this

 

Out of some sense of public duty, perhaps, Master Peat? There are those still, even in these benighted times in which we find ourselves, who think of others, as well as - or even before - themselves, and might wish to warn them, so as to take additional precautions,

 

and this

 

On the subject of altruism, if you own a vehicle with central locking and I, as your friend (are we not all friends here?) known of a simple and widespread method for overcoming the security of the vehicle, I would think it my duty to inform you of this, so that you might take further precautions

 

is on pretty shaky ground.

[Sherlock]

Yet again you misread my posts, or misconstrue the meaning. When I made these statements, they were not in respect of myself, or my chosen vocation. Rather, they were in support of those others herein, not - insofar as I am aware - in a similar position to my own, who were seeking such knowledge, or looking for further information. I was addressing their motives, and must say that, if I was not in this profession, I would have posted similarly to theirs, out of concern for my own and others' property, which I might otherwise believe more secure than it would actually be, if such a method existed.

 

I believe this was supported by Master EM's reply "altruism", which you appear to have missed, or chosen to ignore.

 

I had no need to ask further of the originator, as you will see from my initial post here. I know, for a fact, that the method does not exist.

 

I have repeatedly stated herein that I am limited and, in some cases, proscribed from imparting certain types of information that otherwise, were I not of this vocation, I might be free to do so. I do not know how to make this more clear to you, without reverting to baby talk. I SHALL not breach this ethic, here or elsewhere, to satisfy you or any other, and make no apologies for this.

 

Does this satisfy you? The need to be right can be a terrible thing...

 

Your humble servant.

 

Post scriptum

 

The references to "could" and "might" relate to the vague details in the original post. It does not say whether the "article" was read online, in a book, a magazine, or - maybe - "The Beano" Therefore, in order not to make any assumptions or jump to any conclusions without available evidence, I used these words, and would do so again in similar circumstances. It MIGHT be inferred, from the fact that the originator was posting online straight afterwards, that they had read this online. In this case, it would increase the likelihood of more and more people becoming aware of such information. In a day and age where - apparently - information online is becoming increasingly less secure, it is not too much of a leap, in such circumstances, to suppose this information might fall into the wrong hands. As others may tell you, apparently such information spreads on a viral basis in secure institutions. If you KNEW of such as fact, and did nothing to warn your fellows of this, rendering them more likely to fall prey to theft of items they might otherwise believe to be secured, I MIGHT think less of you for this. In fact, I would.

 

Master EM and Master Caster's altruistic spirits are - increasingly - all too rare in our "don't get invloved" society, where to provide information to the Police of ANY crime, regardless of the victim or scale of offending, is to be despised as being "a grass".

 

Something to be mourned, I believe.

[Gibber]

Yet again you misread my posts, or misconstrue the meaning. When I made these statements, they were not in respect of myself, or my chosen vocation. Rather, they were in support of those others herein, not - insofar as I am aware - in a similar position to my own, who were seeking such knowledge, or looking for further information. I was addressing their motives, and must say that, if I was not in this profession, I would have posted similarly to theirs, out of concern for my own and others' property, which I might otherwise believe more secure than it would actually be, if such a method existed.

 

So ironically your job as a policeman stops you from performing what you describe as your public altruistic duty in this case. Why do the police have such self defeating regulations about publicising how to break into cars?

 

The need to be right can be a terrible thing...

 

That's elementary