Car Tools

Do you have the key now ???

IF YES: Go to any place that can duplicate keys and have one made...

IF NO: Take the lock with you to a locksmith and have someone there make one for you or re-key the lock to a new key for you...

Evan the maintenance man

That's the standard variety of lock these days, at least in the US -- just about every non-high-security door lock, and many padlocks and others, are using the pin-tumbler design.

To make a key: Buy the correct blank to fit your lock's keyway, and cut it down in the correct locations and to the correct heights to lift the bottom pins exactly to the shear line. This is easier if you have an existing correct key and use a pantographic duplicator, or if you have a code-cutting machine, but it can be done by hand with a file if you're careful and have sufficiently precise measuring tools.

But somehow, I don't think that's what you're asking. If what you want is to make a key for a lock you don't own, that falls under the category of lock defeating instructions. See the FAQ for standard commentary on that topic; if you persist on that thread, you WILL be flamed and/or killfiled by the majority of participants here, and ignored by the rest.

<bq%Tb.171874$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

I enjoy your post. You're smart on different subjects. You're not a person that jumps to conclusions. It's been a long time since I've worked on cars. I dont want to go back. The heaviest thing I pick up now is a Blank. :-)))

The jumper wire on the ECM was early in the 80's VATS. So many things happened between The introduction of the 2nd generation of the on board computer in GM products in late 81, 80 and 1/2 and 86 when GM came out with the most recognized version of fuel injection. Remember the old fuel injection in 79? Hint, the Olds which has always been the test car for the Cadi came out with it first. That was a real mess. That stupid box on the distribritor. The C4 was a joke. Remember that TV commercial that intoduced the on board computer to the public in the fall of 79? Was that a Monza? Also, I cant recall how many 84 or 85 carbs I worked on because of that stupid electronic fuel/air and dwell..

Anyway, I guess I'll try to get back on topic. I enjoy talking to you. You make me think.

Probably a good policy.

That's OK alot of caddies wound up with Olds engines in them anyway.

That was a real mess. That stupid box on the

I'm guessing alot. :). The mixture control solonoid on many of those carbs would click so loud people would complain that the car had a lifter problem.

Thanks. Same here.

The FBI thanks to the Patriot Act or anyone with enough computer smarts for that matter can use the little known feature built into OnStar to listen in on your private conversations via the passive listening feature as related in this link :

Big brother is everywhere. There is now a court case discused in the news article about this. Think about it. If OnStar can talk to you when you push the button then whats to stop them from listening in when you dont want them to. I'll stick to my old Ford.

Thank you Joe for you advice. (Ups! Sorry. My apologies to the list)

Me too. '36 & '57

Leon Rowell

Glen Co >I'll stick to my old Ford.

Big brother is everywhere. There is now a court case discused in the news article about this. Think about it. If OnStar can talk to you when you push the button then whats to stop them from listening in when you dont want them to. I'll stick to my old Ford."

Glen it is unfortunate that you are right... But what is to stop those same government agents from tracking your exact location using your cellphone... What is to say that there is not a way to use that technology against you as well ??? Maybe they can listen in on what you are saying just as well because of that cellphone clipped on to your belt or in your pocket...

I mean if you can talk to someone else on your phone they can use that against you ??? Right -- Is that not the argument you are using withy On-Star ???

It is a sad thing when the government is given a 'free pass' such as the Patriot Act that it can and will use to spy on its own citizens whom pay to support it... Security is not something you can have totally when you mix it in with freedom... So what is it everyone seeks -- The half-free half-secure lives we live these days ??? Which half are you getting today gentlemen ??? That is NOT the principle that this nation was founded under... Having the idea of both concepts but not either one completely in itself is worthless... So which is more important to you security or freedom... Choose carefully because once you give up your freedoms you can't get them back...

Do you really want to worry about things like that which you have very little (if any) control over ??? If you do then I wish you well with your future ulcers...

Evan that maintenance man

cellphone...

Pass the Rolaids. Maybe I should buy their stock.

Weren't you only a few posts ago singing the praises of Onstar and minimizing the potential for abuse of it?

Yes I was but you all obviously don't give a crap about that and will take the opposite side of whatever opinion I write...

So I figured 'who cares' let em chew on this one...

How many of you guys out there use cellphones in the course of your normal business activities ???

So umm... *clears throat* Do you watch what you say when you have them turned on ???

Technology is wonderful -- especially for the government who creates the rules that control how it is used... But as the acts passed by Congress show (especially the USA Patriot Act) the government doesn't have to follow the same rules it outlines for its citizens...

Evan the maintenance man

So in other words by your own admission your just babbling as usual with absolutely no concept of what you are talking about, and remember you said it. No one else.

Ummm Yes since they are a RADIO that anyone with the correct receiver can MONITOR them. What's your point?

The example that was given is really not very surprising. Any law enforcement agency with a warrant to do so can legally bug a car, office, phone, etc named in the warrant. The only thing unique about the case in point was that they used an existing feature in essence supplied by and paid for by their target to do so.

No system is 100% secure for very long-There will be some college boys phreaking this. if not already.

goma.

Are the phone phreaks still out there? Half of what they used to thrive on doesn't even work anymore. I figured they all worked for Avaya and Nortel by now.

If I was doing something illegal (which, of course, I would never do) I certainly would be very careful with respect to cell phones *and* regular phones (look up "infinity tap".)

A very scary article. Thanks for the link.

It would be very easy to design it so that listening-in was impossible. Example: route the microphone through a/the push button. That would give absolute security against remote activation of the microphone in the car. Of course it might make it just a bit harder to speak when you needed to speak. (E.g. if onStar activates because of a crash - then the remote site couldn't listen in.) A good design might be able to include both security and ease of use - but this would have to be wanted.

Please excuse me.I was using the term phreak loosely.I can guess that the equipment they used to do that is out of date now.They could be working on something else-who knows??? Nortel and Avaya would have to offer a hell of alot.

JAM eschelon!

So if you are really worried about it use encryption. Even if the encryption could be broken and there is no evidence to support that all algorithms can be despite the paranoia of some, imagine the resources needed to decrypt every message sent.