The definition below from the locksmiths dictionary at:
formatting link
Was originally posted by Evan in support of his contention that Best I/C can be considered a high security lock.
high security cylinder n. a cylinder which offers a greater degree of resistance to any or all of the following: picking, impressioning, key duplication, drilling or other forms of forcible entry
The first question for me with regard to the definition becomes: "greater degree of resistance" compared to what? Perhaps there should be a requirement that a specific standard be met. Such as UL certification for one or better yet more than one (how about all?) of the attacks mentioned in the definition.
The definition as written seems a little vague and somewhat weak.
the above definition of a "high security cylinder" is vague and weak in the real world. may be part of the reason there is misunderstandings of the meaning. also agree that "high security cylinder" should have to meet more of a specific standard.
As a whole I think the dictionary is very good and a wounderful addition to the profession.
So I guess my grade 3 Kwikset lock on my house is 'high security' because it has spool pins? LOL!"
So what I see is three opinions that differ with the however many went into the 'peer review' process that came up with the locksoft dictionary definitions...
I still stand by my assertion that Best I/C are 'high security' in that they stand up well against picking sttempts and have key control capacities (although that depends on the keyway that gets used)... I asked if having some but not all of the attributes mentioned in the locksoft dictionary qualified a lock as 'high security' but then Putyourspamhere went off on a tangent about how Best I/C doesn't comply with UL-437 standards... I then went so far as to say that there is a difference between 'high security' and 'UL-437 complaint' only to be told in his humble opinion that 'high security' MUST = 'UL-437'...
Umm your thoughts/ideas on a 'security scale' were never posted and that was what I was asking after you went off about 'UL-437'...
As far as the definition being vague and 'stupid' to a person off the street well those are EXACTLY the kind of people MOST of you sell locks to isn't it ???
Because there is a difference between 'high security' and 'UL-437 Compliant'... If you want to say that a lock must meet 'UL-437 Standards' to be 'high security' then there is a problem... There is a difference... And it is a major difference I agree... The 'peer review' definition states that it could have any OR all of those attributes and be considered 'high security'...
Perhaps the definition needs to be updated... But until then Best qualifies with some of those 'high security' attributes...
I used 'catch up' on the last thread because of all the crap, I know like I never started crap, so I don't know what was said but the point is the definition is stupid based on the peer review or I think, lack there of.
This should be talked about and changed.
Based on the current definition I can sell my customers crap like a Kwikset with mushroom pins and refer them to Locksoft to 'prove' I sold them a high security lock based on the general standards of locksmithing.
Evan and Putyourspamhere bring up a valid point. One that has been rare lately on this group.
The definition as written above is from 1982 and described the requirements to be called a high security cylinder at the time. Today there is a slightly different set of requirements and that is represented in the proposed definition that can be found in the current Peer Review request at the same site. That definition proposal is;
high security cylinder n. a cylinder which offers a greater degree of resistance to any two or more of the following: picking, impressioning, key duplication, drilling or other forms of forcible entry
In 1982 there was one standard available to determine if a cylinder qualified as high security, it was UL437. That standard has changed many times from then until now and there are also other standards available from ANSI, BHMA, and ASTM.
There are also a great many more high security cylinders on the market today than in 1982 and many of them are not UL437 listed but are still considered high security because of the features they do offer.
There are also cylinders in the market today that offer valid key control features without offering the features required of a true high security cylinder.
The purpose of the LIST Council dictionary is to standardize the terminology used in our industry so we can communicate with each other better. It does not have the purpose of establishing a physical requirement to be called a high security cylinder but instead points out what features are considered important today, and should be compared, to qualify a cylinder as high security.
The purpose of a dictionary is to define, not to teach nor to establish physical qualifications. Go to your Webster dictionary and look up 'hard'. It gives a general qualification, but if you want to know the difference between the hardness of a wood and steel, or the difference between mild steel and hardened steel or maybe inconel you will need to look somewhere else because the purpose of a dictionary isn't to establish physical values, only define that there may be some.
If either LIST Council definition purported itself to be a standard for determining if a cylinder is a high security one, yes it would be a very weak standard, but it isn't a standard gentlemen, it is a definition. BBE.
I have always respected you as a professional and I agree with what you state, however:
The definition as stated in 2004 is wrong in my opinion. It should be better explained.
A Kwikset dead bolt with later installed spool pins is more resistant to:
(1) Picking.
(2) Impressioning.
(3) Drilling if the spool pin[s] hangs up causing more time to be spent in the real world to turn the plug.
(4) Key duplication if the key is stamped "Do Not Duplicate".
I simply don't think Locksoft defining 'high security' in the way it is defined is a good idea based on the lay persons' perspective in the real world even though as you stated:
"The purpose of the LIST Council dictionary is to standardize the terminology used in our industry so we can communicate with each other."
I believe a standard should be set for 'high security' to eleminate all the guess work. That's all. I know that's not your fault. I'm not knockin' you. I don't think you think I am. You've done a good job, but I just dont think in this case it is enough based on you're work with the dictionary in the past.
You've taken' on a position of respect in this industry which is well deserved and I just think that on this very small technical note you screwed up.
Possibly the same way safes are rated for resistance to tool attack? I would consider a lock that implemented a sidebar as being high security-or one that had hard plates inside-or a restricted blank-I think all of these together would definitely qualify it. But, here we are back to "A DEGREE GREATER THAN WHAT?" you got me. goma
The 'peer review' definition is not meant to be standard. seems like your is. this has been explained to you numerous times now and you choose to keep a closed mind. like I stated, "looks like there may never be an agreement here on this particular subject" so there is really no real reason to continue. bottom line is that Best IC is NOT high security. Like you have already been told, call Best 317-849-2250 and see for yourself. keep trolling if you wish but I fail to see any professional here backing your opinions. that should tell you something. sure tells this group something.
-snip- I'm not going to argue the Best I/C high security or not question with you here. It's been argued enough in the other thread and everyone is likely sick of it anyway so I'm not going to get into it here.
You can find much information online and elswhere for that matter which is currently inaccurate due to age, omission, etc. It's up to the reader to make an educated informed decision. In this case I think you lack the real world knowledge and experience to do that.
are you talking to me ? I have been in the locksmith business for 23+ years. maybe you were trying to tell Evan that and responded to my post by mistake ?
The proposed definition is part of a peer review process. All you have to do is bring a valid argument to the attention of the LIST Council that the definition is technically incorrect and it will be considered for revision. That is how it got on the peer review this time, I complained that it wasn't real enough.
It is really nice when complaints contain a suggestion or example for the requested improvement. BBE.
OK. It seems obvious; the need for a restricted keyway so the cylinder couldn't be compromised with a key bought at the hardware store and a hard plate to slow down the drilling process and a side bar or spool pins to prevent picking and impressioning and a bolt for a dead bolt lock that isn't made of pot metal that is resistant to sawing that has strong thru bolts and a hard ring or a pad lock that is hard to get to with bolt cutters but I'll think about some of the finer details, cost to manufacture and benifits before I shoot off my mouth on this one. Give me a few days.
I think the defintion in question was only regarding the cylinder but most of your suggestions are still valid. I would persoanlly suggest the requirement of compliance with relevant standards or standard.
e.g. a lock cylinder which fully complies with at least one established, current high security standard for lock cylinders provided cylinder is used in a manner relevant to said standard.
That's off the top of my head. I have to admit that writing a definition which is clear , concise and accurate is not that easy.
However in general let current standards set the bar. That way you don't have to list each and every requirement in the definition. Also by stating "current" standard the definition will not become dated. "relevant" is important because you don't want to misapply a standard e.g. One from a different country than where the lock is being used.
PolyTech Forum 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.