Will this get me fired?

My situation: I'm a state licensed locksmith working in and for a retirement community. I inherited its MK "system" from someone previous who didn't know what he was doing. A situation arose there Friday in which someone alleged that their residence had been entered and robbed. After thinking about the things I'd discovered (listed below) I told my manager that I would need to write a document this weekend which I would need to have signed before I could continue to manage this MK situation for the corporation. My concerns which are listed below will explain my desire to protect my locksmith license from revocation and spell out the gravity of what I've discovered.

My thanks to Billy B. Edwards for his inspiration on this. Would you make any changes in this? My wife says I'll get fired for submitting it; what do you think?

[begin quote] To confirm our conversations regarding the Master Key "system" currently used at XXXXXXX with XXXX's Property Manager, this document is to serve as record of my concern that the particular MK system which encompasses the housing is seriously flawed. Specifically:

(1) There is no known bitting list. Any change key(s) generated to expand the current system, such as for re-keying a recently-vacated home for new occupant(s), will present a real possibility of unintentional interchange with locks installed on other dwellings. A properly designed MK bitting list serves as the 'rules of the road' in regards to that system. Without those "rules" to go by, laws will most likely be broken and may have serious consequences.

(2) The keys currently used to facilitate a working MK system already violate manufacturer's (Schlage's) specifications for accomplishing the purpose of master-keying. Any expansion of the system can only exacerbate the risk of unintentional key interchange, and although new change bittings can be made to expand the system, they will be educated guesses at best.

3) My examination of several change keys and their related cylinders reveals that established master-keying rules were not obeyed when introducing them into the system. In order to make nonconforming change bittings work alongside otherwise-unworkable master keys, bottom pins have been used as top (driver) pins with points down in random cylinders to increase shear line dimensions. This assures that both master keys and change keys will operate the lock cylinders smoothly and without jamming, but it does so at the expense of greatly decreasing the cylinder's resistance to key manipulation, lock picking and "lock bumping." This could even occur accidentally if someone inadvertently tries to open someone else's door with their own key. The likelihood of this actually happening is perhaps very small, but I would be shirking my responsibilities to discover this and leave it unreported to you.

(4) Non-compensating top pins (drivers) have been found in every cylinder I have disassembled to-date. This is a short-cut in recombinating a cylinder; it requires perhaps another minute to re-pin a cylinder according to manufacturer's specifications. This practice has nothing to do with master-keying and usually causes no problem, but it does bypass the manufacturer's security design and lessens that security.

This document is to confirm your understanding of my advisements above and to make a record of them. By signing a copy of this document and returning it, you will authorize me, XXX XXXX state-locksmith license #XXXX, to proceed with your instructions to generate and produce change keys under the current master key using my best judgement and to combinate related cylinders to those two intended bittings. It is understood by you that unintended bittings will result. You will remove from me any and all liability and/or responsibility for following this assignment and will accept that liability and responsibility yourself. Upon receipt of a signed copy of these instructions I will proceed with your directives and with our primary responsibility of protecting the residents and properties of XXXXXXX.

Reply to
Radrunner
Loading thread data ...

Your only acceptable solution in this situation is to tell the client that their Master Key System is in a state of being beyond repair or expansion at the current time... That it is time to meet and determine the specifications for a new system...

If they do not like your statements to that effect you should consider consulting the legal advice of a bar-certified attorney-at-law in your state to consider the legal consequences of continuing to service any part of the system you are describing below... Especially if your goal is to reduce YOUR legal liability for yourself and your company...

You could create a bitting list by examining each and every change key and recording its cuts... However, this would be a waste of time given that you have encountered rounded bottom pins being used as top pins in every lock you have taken apart thus far...

I would not even offer the possibility of expanding the current system... Not without examining and recording all of the change key bittings and going to each lock in the system to pin them correctly of that is possible given the bittings used for the change key of the lock and the bitting of the master key...

It is possible that even though you may be cleared of legal liability of you have a properly worded signed release letter in hand that you could still loose your license for misconduct by performing work that you know to be sub-standard even having obtained a signed release from liability statement from the client...

Unless the client is agreeable to rectifying this condition through the replacement of the Master Key System this would be a ticking time bomb that is better to be dropped as a client by your company that to try and work around this and attempt to expand the system without having future problems creep up... You would literally have to take any future keys to be introduced into that system to each and every lock and see if they work before using them in the system, and given your description of the conditions such interchange is more likely than you think possible...

[Reread] Edwards: Master Keying by the numbers

~ The section on "Master Keys, The Shoebox" (the type of system you have been describing)

~ The section on "Prerequisites, Lock Design Specifications" (the method of pinning you are describing)

You described this as a "retirement community" is/are there any "managed care" aspects to the property ??? (i.e. nursing assistants available, or an "emergency medical response team" or the like)... If so the Master Key System you described may not comply with JCAHO standards and could be a potential accreditation issue for the facility if it is reported to the proper authorities...

My advice (which you can take with a grain of salt if you like since I am NOT a licensed locksmith) is to either convince the client to replace the unsafe and sub-standard Master Key System or conclude doing business with them and wish them luck finding someone who is willing to provide unprofessional service to them...

In any case be certain (through consulting a bar-certified attorney) that such a signed letter of release from liability does in fact release you from liability under the specific laws that govern the professional practice of locksmithing in your state... It is possible that you could still bear some liability for doing work that you know is sub-standard even with the release letter in hand...

Good luck -- Evan, ~~ formerly a maintenance man and now also a former college student...

Reply to
Evan

I am not a locksmith nor an attorney.

I would make a simpler 'presentation' to reflect your problems/situation - in say, 5 lines. It is up to you about what you are willing to do or not do in terms of being responsible henceforth, but I would make a short set of simple statements that the MK situation isn't properly MKed and thus needs to be redone to be compliant/proper/ of expected security.

If you want to put a lot of additional words down under and supporting the top 'executive summary' part, that is up to you.

Someone or more at the facility is going to have to make a decision about what they are going to choose to do or not do about the condition, and there is going to be delay in that decision process. While the delay/decision is going on, someone needs to acknowledge to you that they have accepted your /notification/ about the condition.

Reply to
Mike Easter

Thanks for the suggestions. I should explain, this is not a mere client; it's my employer I'm talking about. My suggestions to re-key the entire neighborhood under a brand-new MK has been met with the claim that "we can't afford it." My argument is that they can't afford not to! My mangers don't seem to foresee the possibility of something tragic happening. It seems short-sighted to me to quibble over a few thousand bucks when such an 'expensive' accident could result from ignoring the threat.

My acceptable solutions to this are:

(1) They sign,

(2) I Decline, to re-key any more houses that is. I was hired as a "Maintenance Tech," not as a locksmith or a lock re-keyer. It so happens I am a licensed locksmith, so I volunteered to resolve all their door & lock-related issues because that's what I most love doing anyway and no one else had a handle on it. It was only when I began comparing their bittings that I knew there was something fishy going on in their MK "system." For instance, I measured a #2 cut on my MK in the first pin chamber, and found a #1 or a #3 cut on many CKs. I disassembled my first cylinder fully expecting to see a bottom pin on top of the pin stack, and that's exactly what I found. Thus far I have not encountered any filed plugs, so my suggested remedies to this situation will at least not result in any great expense of hardware. Pins, springs, key blanks and my time cutting and re-keying would be their only expenses. I'm willing to throw in my experience and expertise at no additional cost to them because senior citizens are the residents involved.

Maybe that's why they haven't accepted my suggestions yet: it's just too good to be true!

If they won't sign my document, I'll have to decline doing anything with their locks any more. It's as simple as that. No hard feelings and no bloody knuckles.

I have already (manually) produced a bitting list under a new MK system which I have proposed to my manager. I expanded that list to produce more than 200% of the capacity of the neighborhood.

BTW, it was Billy's book which educated me and alerted me to all this.

Reply to
Radrunner

Thanks for the suggestions. I should explain, this is not just a client, it's my employer. My suggestions to re-key the entire neighborhood under a brand-new MK has been met with the claim that "we can't afford it." My argument is that they can't afford not to! My mangers don't seem to foresee the possibility of something tragic happening. It seems short-sighted to me to quibble over a few thousand bucks when an 'expensive' accident could result from ignoring the threat.

My acceptable solutions to this are:

(1) They sign,

(2) I Decline, to re-key any more houses that is. I was hired as a "Maintenance Tech," not as a locksmith or a lock re-keyer. It so happens I am a licensed locksmith, so I volunteered to resolve all their door & lock-related issues because that's what I most love doing anyway and no one else had a handle on it. It was only when I began comparing their bittings that I knew there was something fishy going on in their MK "system." For instance, I measured a #2 cut on my MK in the first pin chamber, and found a #1 or a #3 cut on many CKs. I disassembled my first cylinder fully expecting to see a bottom pin on top of the pin stack, and that's exactly what I found. Thus far I have not encountered any filed plugs, so my suggested remedies to this situation will at least not result in any great expense of hardware. Pins, springs, key blanks and my time cutting and re-keying would be their only expenses. I'm willing to throw in my experience and expertise at no additional cost to them because senior citizens are the residents involved.

Maybe that's why they haven't accepted my suggestions yet: it's just too good to be true!

If they won't sign my document, I'll have to decline doing anything with their locks any more. It's as simple as that. No hard feelings and no bloody knuckles.

I have already (manually) produced a bitting list under a new MK system which I have proposed to my manager. I expanded that list to produce more than 200% of the capacity of the neighborhood.

BTW, it was Billy's book which educated me and alerted me to all this.

Reply to
Radrunner

They hired the wrong person for the job they actually wanted done. They wanted some maintenance which included the lock situation. They didn't want an evaluation of what had been done wrong with how the MK situation was structured and implemented and maintained.

You want to do a big (compliant and secure) lockjob because that's what you know how to do and want to do. It's like going to a doctor just for a checkup and finding out he wants to remove your gallbladder and repair your hernia, neither of which are bothering you, because he happens to be a surgeon and surgery is what he likes to do best. It the surgery is also remunerative. Except this is worse because they are 'liable' for their insecurity if they don't do what you want to do and consequently there is adverse outcome.

I can think of some other examples that involve accountants or auditors or attorneys who discover and want to do what they like to do best and who are able to find all kinds of things wrong with the way the previous attorney or auditor or accountant performed some work which seemed to be working satisfactorily until the new guy started sticking his nose into it.

Imagine a caretaker coming into your home to help you take care of an aged relative, and instead of just providing some help, the next thing you know they are warning you that if you don't restructure how your house is built for accessibility features, they are going to turn you in to the state for elder abuse.

So, there you go.

Reply to
Mike Easter

ok, this is catch 22.. I am ASSUMING you are NOT an independent (work for the public) locksmith? this is your full time job?

then, ASSUMING a serious accident were to happen, you probably would get fired, BUT, he gets the lawsuit.. depending on your state..

--Shiva--

Reply to
me

It frankly sounds a little to technically decriptive to me for the purpose you are talking about. Saying it's flawed is probably enough without going into exactly why in the type of doccument you are talking about. That said you should really talk to your attorney before doing this. Since it's 'your' MK system, more or less, he or she can best advise you on what you want to disclose you knew and when you supposedly knew it. Factor the attorney's consultation fee into what you charge to fix the system.

Reply to
Steve

There is a better practical compromise, one which may not be so unpalatable to the manager.

Simply suggest that as the existing MK system is near the end of the road, that you introduce a fresh system, preferably with a restricted profile, as cylinders need re-keying. Hopefully if Schlage key-in-knob they are the newer type 'A' series or better that will accommodate new 6 pin cylinders or restricted plugs.

The downsides for the management is the need to carry two masterkeys for a transition period.

If the management is in no practical position to immediately budget a new system, this will at least give the management some wriggle room, which would probably be very much appreciated.

The management can probably start introducing a new MK system within the scope of the maintenance budget, but probably needs up to 12 months lead time to obtain approval for a complete new system from the board.

Any sensible management should appreciate being advised of security shortcomings but not if presented in such a way as to force large immediate expenditure. In such a situation, the easiest option for the management is to shop around for a locksmith who will work on the existing system regardless of the consequences.

Any new system should be very sharply priced. The real profit would come from supplying extra keys and re-keyings especially where a restricted or patented system is used (like the Illinois locksmith who supplied Primus locks for new jobs to the State government at very keen prices then cleaned up on the after-sales work).

Reply to
peterwn

Not just the employer. An attorney can name anyone they want as a defendant and you are then talking either a lot of time, money, or both, to either litigate it or get it dismissed.

Reply to
Steve

If you are worried about your license then IMHO you should treat the situation the same as if your employer were a client and you were a seperate business entity doing work for them.

Reply to
Steve

true, but the hourly employee is not the deep pocket.. so they go for the boss/owner as well.

--Shiva--

Reply to
me

True the employer will definitely get named but an agressive lawyer may name anyone remotely associated with the incident too. Look at all the defendants who were named in the codepro/clearstar mess. Not exactly the same situation but an example of naming multiple defendants.

Reply to
Steve

the very worst possible thing you could do... It is called something along the lines of "willful negligence" because the person making the decisions knows there is a security problem but rather than address the issue and correct it immediately decides to do it piecemeal by "waiting to change it out as tenants come and go"... This means that some new tenants are well protected while a majority of the existing tenants are not... Following this advice will only serve to add EXTRA megabucks to the dollar amount of any lawsuits... The only fair and equitable solution to ALL of the tenants is to fix the entire faulty Master Key System at the same time...

I do agree with everyone that what you initially wrote is very technical and anyone who does not understand Master Keying will be unable to figure out what it is you are trying to tell them... As others have said in this thread use the concept of an "executive summary" in the most basic layman's terms would be a good thing...

Evan, ~~ formerly a maintenance man and now also a former college student...

Reply to
Evan

There are actually two issues here:

  1. If a locksmith is not confident with working with an existing system, recommending a 'parallel' system would be quite a good solution. Reasons to start a parallel system would be:
1.1 Bitting chart for existing system not available (and reverse engineering not possible for one reason or another). 1.2 Existing system has run out of differs. 1.3 Existing system is starting to get 'tired' eg patents due to expire, worn cylinders etc such that it is desirable to start gracefully retiring the system. 1.4 Specific security concerns with some particular rooms, etc. For example if some residents are very concerned with security, why not set up (say) a Medeco system and ask the residents in question to contribute to the cost of the cylinders. 1.6 Reducing dependency on a single locksmith.

A decision to set up a parallel system for one or more of these reasons does not necessarily imply that the existing system is so defective as to warrant immediate replacement.

  1. Whether the existing system is so defective that it should be immediately condemned. Reasons would be:
2.1 Loss of a masterkey. 2.2 Suspicion of the existence of an illegal masterkey. 2.3 System set up in an incompetent way. 2.4 Additions and alterations carried out in an incompetent way. 2.5 Worn cylinders. 2.6 Expired patents or the appearance of blanks at local key cutters etc.

This also raises the issue that where a locksmith recommends a new system, for reasons 2 above, but the customer rejects the recommendation, so a locksmith starts a 'parallel' system - to what extent is the locksmith liable for any problems that can be traced to the old system? The locksmith has done all that can be reasonably expected of him.

This begs the more general question of what level of cylinder security is required for apartments, etc anyway. Judging from comments previously posted on this ng, there seems to be a very large number of decrepit apartment masterkey systems out there. And yet there cannot have been too many successful lawsuits which turn on cylinder security, otherwise insurers would be insisting that deficient systems be replaced.

This begs the even more general question of why the entrance doors to individual apartments need to be masterkeyed at all. This seems to be something peculiar to USA, it does not seem to be the case in Europe. If an apartment had to be broken into in an emergency, then insurance would cover repair costs. In the city I live in in New Zealand, there is a large number of municipal owned apartments. A suggestion to masterkey them some years ago was rejected.

Reply to
peterwn

This is a good option where a functional system properly designed and pinned according to the minimum acceptable trade standards is in place and has been exhausted... However, for the system that this thread is discussing neither of those conditions applies... Allowing any part of a compromised or improperly designed system to remain in service could create liability for all parties involved in making that decision...

This could raise questions of liability in the event unauthorized entries occur with no signs of burglary... Why are only "some" of the locks being replaced if the building owners/managers are aware of the reduced security conditions due to expiration of a patent (that affects all of the locks in the system) or worn cylinders (which are a improper maintenance/negligence liability issue) ???

One way to plan for this in the design stage of the system is to specify Interchangeable Core locks so that the cylinders can be swapped out immediately (by persons other than locksmiths)as occupancies change hands or get worn out from heavy usage... This would also allow for the security of the locks to be more easily upgraded in the future to a new patented security design from the same OEM or a third-party company that has produced compatible products for that particular lock...

A properly designed and OEM factory registered Master Key System is never dependent on a single locksmith...

A keying system designed by a single locksmith that is not registered with the factory very well could be dependent on the locksmith who designed it... That is an undesirable situation as that locksmith: could go out of business, loose his/her license (where licensing applies)... Where does that leave the owner of the system ???

You wouldn't "condemn" an entire system because of worn cylinders, the most effective option would be to replace the worn cylinders with new replacement cylinders keyed the same way as the ones being "retired"...

The locksmith should obtain a letter of release from liability in the above situation of creating a new "parallel system" to be entirely certain that he/she will bear no possible liability in the event something does happen... It is best to inform the client, cover all bases, and obtain the liability waiver so your client understands the seriousness of deciding to allow a compromised or improperly designed/maintained keying system to remain in place...

It is all a matter of knowledge... The people living in the apartments being secured by the 'decrepit' Master Key Systems are unaware that they are so vulnerable... Also a lawsuit doesn't have to go all the way through the entire legal process to be "successful" as most insurance companies and defendants would rather reach a confidential settlement than create public case law that would apply to any further similar situation that occurs in that jurisdiction...

It has to do with the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) and the rules established by building codes that apply to multi-unit dwellings within that jurisdiction... In some places it is a requirement to provide the local fire department with keys that open all of the units in an apartment building... This is most efficiently accomplished by creating a Master Key System and allowing the Fire Department to secure a copy of the Master Key in a lockbox at the building's main entry point for use in various emergency response situations...

I also think that it is the difference in ownership -- most apartments in the USA are owned by someone other than the occupants... Owner occupied units in a multi-unit dwelling are generally referred to as condos...

Evan, ~~ formerly a maintenance man and now also a former college student...

Reply to
Evan

This place was described as a 'retirement community'.

I don't know how 'severe' the level of retirement is -- I'm familiar with assisted living facilities in which the residents are pretty infirm in one way or another - they sleep very soundly, they have poor hearing, they aren't able to get around with alacrity, they have a history of falling down and not being able to get up again or they have trouble getting from their bed into their wheelchair or walker. And they love to lock their door/s. And sometimes they expire/die.

In such environments, the number of times someone tending the facility might need to enter the apartment's door just to communicate effectively and/or to ascertain that some resident or another is OK might be several or many times per day. That would be a lot of penetration breakages that would need to be repaired.

Reply to
Mike Easter

Even so, if there were any significant number of claims that were settled 'out of court' in favor of the litigant, then surely insurance companies would insist that masterkey systems were kept up to scratch.

Why is it for example (as discussed here some time back) that an owner can have three apartment buildings with sub-master keys and maison keying all based on regular keyway 5 pin cylinders.

It would seem the best possible arrangement would be dual cylinders (now that bicentric cylinders are history) with the 'masterkey' cylinder being a Medeco or similar high security version. The cylinder or at least the plug should be removable only with the proper key (eg Australian BiLock). The other cylinder can be what ever the occupier chooses.

Are condos, especially multi storey ones usually masterkeyed? Many condos would have similar physical characteristics to apartments.

Reply to
peterwn

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.