[Edman274]

People don't buy locks so that they can lose their keys and require the lock to be picked. They buy locks to secure access to items or places. The parent I was replying to is saying that locks aren't security because a sledgehammer breaks them. I argue that a sledgehammer is only important for certain threat models. I am quite aware that most lock picking is for lost keys. However, I am describing threat models for which locks are important security. Do you understand?

[raincole]

The parent you were replying to mentioned at least three things:

- lock picking hobbist

- snap gun

- sledgehammer

And you simplified their comment to "locks aren't security because a sledgehammer breaks them" then proceeded to describe threat models where a sledgehammer doesn't work in detail. It's not a very constructive discussion.

[prmoustache]

Locks are only really here to prevent "opportunistic" theft, not fully motivated ones.

You need more than that to prevent theft. They are like the first layer of an onion.

[nemomarx]

Even without the sledge hammer your locks probably aren't good enough to stop a thief with a set of picks. A robot that brute forces it is more expensive and slower than any of the existing tools, so it shouldn't change your threat model.

[pixl97]

"I broke this masterlock with a masterlock"

Lock companies put out a lot of advertising to make it seem like their products work far better than they actually do.