Cory,
I don't think the issue is the existence of backdoors, but who has access to the door. And not just gun safes, all our technology.
Every hotel room door has a backdoor, whether it be modern access cards or the older physical Master-keys. The safes inside our hotel rooms have backdoors for customers who forget their PINs. Our installed home security systems will have an admin code. If they include cameras and connected to the internet for self monitoring there is a reasonable chance others can watch remotely. Our mobile phone betrays us wherever we take it, and why a lot of crime is solved so quickly nowadays. Although common knowledge, the media in Australia have an agreement with the police to not emphasize how the authorities 'ping' the phones of known offenders every time there is a major crime, and of all phones within a radius of known crimes. In this case it is not the maker of the phone, but the Telco's cooperating with the Police on a systematic basis, probably even charging for the service. For more serious investigations at the Federal level your phone can be activated remotely (camera and microphone). Facial recognition software tracks us constantly in public, matching our faces to not only file data, but social media postings. If you or your employer has ever put your photo online - too late.
The Australian Police were criticized for accessing data used to keep us safe during COVID. A phone app encouraged by the State Government to help them alert anyone who had come in contact with infected others was covertly used by the Police to solve two murders in Western Australia. While the Police were adamant they had done nothing wrong and in fact had solved crime, the community and Health Department were annoyed when the story broke. Obviously trust had been broken between the Government and people. Although there were assurances it wouldn't happen again, people stopped downloading and using the app.
In the gun safe case from reading the thread I understand there was a warrant, but that it did not include the manufacturer. That Liberty did not consult, or even inform the owner at the time is an issue of commercial trust. Years ago I owned a security company and found out via the Police the local Motorola service rep had given them all our UHF radio serial numbers without informing us we were under investigation. The police were investigating the theft of radios from another company. The fact the rep complied with the police who at the time also encouraged him not to let us know, was in our view a breach of trust. We had a tense conversation with him later and replaced our radios with Icoms (cheaper anyway). On realizing his business with us was about to evaporate he was most apologetic and tried to argue it was the Police and not just anyone - too little, too late.
Access to our stuff and privacy is ubiquitous, but it's how much control we have over this that is the issue.
I don't think the issue is the existence of backdoors, but who has access to the door. And not just gun safes, all our technology.
Every hotel room door has a backdoor, whether it be modern access cards or the older physical Master-keys. The safes inside our hotel rooms have backdoors for customers who forget their PINs. Our installed home security systems will have an admin code. If they include cameras and connected to the internet for self monitoring there is a reasonable chance others can watch remotely. Our mobile phone betrays us wherever we take it, and why a lot of crime is solved so quickly nowadays. Although common knowledge, the media in Australia have an agreement with the police to not emphasize how the authorities 'ping' the phones of known offenders every time there is a major crime, and of all phones within a radius of known crimes. In this case it is not the maker of the phone, but the Telco's cooperating with the Police on a systematic basis, probably even charging for the service. For more serious investigations at the Federal level your phone can be activated remotely (camera and microphone). Facial recognition software tracks us constantly in public, matching our faces to not only file data, but social media postings. If you or your employer has ever put your photo online - too late.
The Australian Police were criticized for accessing data used to keep us safe during COVID. A phone app encouraged by the State Government to help them alert anyone who had come in contact with infected others was covertly used by the Police to solve two murders in Western Australia. While the Police were adamant they had done nothing wrong and in fact had solved crime, the community and Health Department were annoyed when the story broke. Obviously trust had been broken between the Government and people. Although there were assurances it wouldn't happen again, people stopped downloading and using the app.
In the gun safe case from reading the thread I understand there was a warrant, but that it did not include the manufacturer. That Liberty did not consult, or even inform the owner at the time is an issue of commercial trust. Years ago I owned a security company and found out via the Police the local Motorola service rep had given them all our UHF radio serial numbers without informing us we were under investigation. The police were investigating the theft of radios from another company. The fact the rep complied with the police who at the time also encouraged him not to let us know, was in our view a breach of trust. We had a tense conversation with him later and replaced our radios with Icoms (cheaper anyway). On realizing his business with us was about to evaporate he was most apologetic and tried to argue it was the Police and not just anyone - too little, too late.
Access to our stuff and privacy is ubiquitous, but it's how much control we have over this that is the issue.