It’s still legal to pick locks, even when you swing your legs.

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 70 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Ok, that was a great read lol.

I sought out the videos, the original (now reinstated after abusive copyright strike): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzlmKz_MM8

Follow-up with no pre-prep after being called a liar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQp5JcQwLA

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    That's not nearly as easy as I thought just from reading the article, since you have to cut the can in a specific way. But like a company hiring a hacker to improve their digital security, they should have used his videos to improve their lock design.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    For a moment, I thought the lockpicker was Lockpicking Lawyer, but it's someone else.

    Proven Industries owner Ron Lee (...) was a triple felon

    I'm sure that looks great on a resume

    “Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.”

    This alone explains the entire company, really

    Things went on this way for some time, as the judge wondered, “Did the plaintiff bring a lock and a beer can?” (The plaintiff did not.) She appeared to be quite disappointed when it was clear there would be no live shimming demonstration in the courtroom.

    Under questioning, however, one of Proven’s employees admitted that he had been able to duplicate McNally’s technique, leading to the question from McNally’s lawyer: “When you did it yourself, did it occur to you for one moment that maybe the best thing to do, instead of file a lawsuit, was to fix [the lock]?”

    LOL

    On July 7, the company dismissed the lawsuit against McNally instead.

    Proven did a great speedrun of self destruction.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.”

    On May 1, Proven filed a federal lawsuit against McNally in the Middle District of Florida, charging him with a huge array of offenses: (1) copyright infringement, (2) defamation by implication, (3) false advertising, (4) violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (5) tortious interference with business relationships, (6) unjust enrichment, (7) civil conspiracy, and (8) trade libel. Remarkably, the claims stemmed from a video that all sides admit was accurate and in which McNally himself said nothing.

    Company wants to shut down negative reviews of their shitty product by gaslighting the public and intimidating his family.

    Sounds like a bunch of fascists.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    (My bold throughout.)

    Copyright infringement

    This must be for using their video in his video. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

    [T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

    Defamation by implication

    https://dictionary.nolo.com/defamation-by-implication.html

    An injury to reputation that's caused when literally true factual statements create a false impression. While the elements of defamation by implication vary from state to state, in general, it requires proof that the speaker:

    • published true statements in a way that implied something defamatory, or
    • implied something defamatory by omitting facts, and
    • intended the defamatory implication.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

    To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

    False advertising

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_advertising

    To bring a claim for false advertising, the plaintiff must show:

    • The defendant made false or misleading statements as to their own products (or another’s);
    • Actual deception occurred, or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience;
    • The deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions;
    • The advertised goods travel in interstate commerce; and
    • There was a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff.

    Violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

    https://www.jimersonfirm.com/services/bet-company-litigation/florida-deceptive-unfair-trade-practices-act-fdutpa/

    To prove a case of unfair and deceptive trade practices in Florida, a plaintiff must generally show the following elements:

    • A deceptive act or unfair practice: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in a deceptive or unfair act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce;
    • Causation: The plaintiff must show that the deceptive or unfair act caused the plaintiff to suffer some type of harm. This harm can be economic, such as a loss of money or property, or non-economic, such as emotional distress; and
    • Actual damages: The plaintiff must prove that they suffered actual damages due to the defendant’s deceptive or unfair act, such as out-of-pocket expenses, lost profits, and other economic losses.

    Tortious interference with business relationships

    https://feldman.law/news/what-is-tortious-interference-with-a-business-relationship/

    Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage occurs when a third party or another individual or entity with outside influence interferes with an informal relationship that could create an expectation of economic advantage. To lodge a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, the following elements must be proven:

    • The business had a relationship with another business or individual.
    • An outside (third) party knew this relationship existed.
    • The outside party purposefully and by wrongful means disrupted that business relationship.
    • The outside party’s interference with the business relationship caused harm.

    Improper conduct by an outside party that affects business relationships and/or contractual agreements can include:

    ...

    • Fraud ...
    • Misrepresentation

    Unjust enrichment

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unjust_enrichment

    Unjust enrichment occurs when Party A confers a benefit upon Party B without Party A receiving the proper restitution required by law.

    Civil conspiracy

    https://www.turnpikelaw.com/what-is-civil-conspiracy/

    It’s called civil conspiracy, and it happens when there is an agreement amongst people to commit a fraudulent, wrongful or deceitful act, any of which would constitute a business tort. The parties must all know that they are participating in a planned wrongful act.

    Trade libel

    https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2023/11/01/is-it-defamation-or-trade-libel/

    [T]rade libel requires that the publication be “concerning plaintiff’s business, property or product.” ... [T]rade libel always requires proof of actual malice (i.e., that the statement was made with knowledge of falsity or a high degree of awareness of probable falsity), ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Holy fuck, thank you for taking the time!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I stuck with reference source content above, allow me to put in my own non-lawyer assessments here.

    Copyright infringement: This appears to be fair use, because it's "criticism or comment".

    Defamation by implication: Because all sides admit that the video is accurate, and the content which they are suggesting is defamatory is so short and succinct, I have a hard time believing that it would rise to the level of "defamation".

    False advertising: Plaintiff must show that the defendant made false or misleading statements. All sides admit that the video was accurate. Where is the false or misleading statement? Not to mention that false advertising is normally levied against someone trying to inflate the value of their own product, or deflate the value of a competitor product.

    Violating Florida Deceptive ... Act: This can be charged in federal court, because it's a "complement" to the FTC Acts. I don't see where anything "deceptive or unfair" is alleged, because ... all sides admit the video is accurate.

    Tortious interference with business relationships: I don't know what "relationship" they're relying on here. Informal relationship with customers? Retailers? I'm not seeing any improper conduct here.

    Unjust enrichment: This is a "You didn't pay your bill" or "You didn't uphold your end of the agreement" kind of thing. I have no idea where they even got this charge from.

    Civil conspiracy: This would be the civil court "side" of criminal conspiracy. If someone is convicted of criminal conspiracy, their sentence is a criminal one. Once such a sentence exists, people who have experienced loss because of that criminal conspiracy can file civil suit to collect damages. That's not what's going on here, but I also know that one can be not guilty in criminal court while being found liable in civil court for the "same thing". Here, though, because (wait for it) all sides agree that the video is accurate, I'm not sure what the fraudulent, wrongful, or deceitful act would be, and there's definitely not the intent to commit a planned wrongful act. No way this sticks.

    Trade libel: All parties -- you know the drill. The truth cann't be libelous. And there's that pesky actual malice thing again.


    Feels like a SLAPP suit is the correct response here, because these charges are all utter bollocks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Hahaha wow, they self destruct.

  • source
  • Sure would be a shame if there were a bunch of searches for "proven locks fail", "proven locks alternative", "proven locks shimmy" etc...

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Reading that article was easily the best five minutes of humor I had in several days.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Who are you and how did you get in here?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Ah, aside from the racism and death threats to the lock company owner, that's a funny read. The best part is how it concludes: the company knew how to take mockery in stride with a smart response video.

    Just, somehow, the Florida man owner got his feelings hurt and just had to make a mess of things (and later try and seal the records after losing so badly lol).

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Can't believe I read the entire thing. Big hooha about nothing.

  • source
  • 23 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 115 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Under questioning, however, one of Proven’s employees admitted that he had been able to duplicate McNally’s technique, leading to the question from McNally’s lawyer: “When you did it yourself, did it occur to you for one moment that maybe the best thing to do, instead of file a lawsuit, was to fix the lock?”

    Litigation over innovation; that’s the American way.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 99 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    One of the funniest things I saw when this was unfolding on youtube is that McNally works for Covert Instruments, AKA the Lockpicking Lawyer's company. Proven Industries couldn't have fucked up more if it was deliberate.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    “Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.”

    There it is. These companies that are run by old, rich, white men think they are owed your money. Any and all criticism, no matter how true, is hand-waved away as "wacky liberal extremists". But some people still know how to cite their sources and offer proof.

    Proven also had its lawyers file “multiple” DMCA takedown notices against the McNally video, claiming that its use of Proven’s promo video was copyright infringement.

    McNally didn’t bow to the pressure, though, instead uploading several more videos showing him opening Proven locks. In one of them, he takes aim at Proven’s claims about his prep work by retrieving a new lock from an Amazon delivery kiosk, taking it outside—and popping it in seconds using a shim he cuts right on camera, with no measurements, from an aluminum can.

    Republicans are literally ruining America and the world. I had no feelings prior to this, now I will tell every single friend and family member to never, ever buy a Proven lock...

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    the more you do the "XYZ white |insert gender|" the more your adding division. stop stooping to their level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    CEOs are factually and demonstrably overwhelmingly white males, far out of proportion to general demographics. Since when did pointing out a statistical fact become divisive?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    you know why you added the "white" in your sentence. like i call out the people who "conveniently" put "black/brown/etc.." in their sentences in certain contexts, i wasn't born yesterday.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I added it because it is the subject we are discussing. Your comments are vaguely coherent but have no real point.

    Unchecked corporate power is THE problem and corporations are a small club of people of a specific demographic with a history of protectionism and shady dealings to protect their power.

    It is perfectly valid to point out the root cause of problems, in this case the corporate cabal that needs to be dismantled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Companies attacking security researchers always goes so well for them.

  • source
  • [+] 39 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    The YouTuber RunkleOfTheBailey has some really good videos documenting this case.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Wow this is so good. Love the judge in this case:

    Proven had demanded a preliminary injunction that would stop McNally from sharing his videos while the case progressed, but Proven had issues right from the opening gavel:

    LAWYER 1: Austin Nowacki on behalf of Proven industries.

    THE COURT: I’m sorry. What is your name?

    LAWYER 1: Austin Nowacki.

    THE COURT: I thought you said Austin No Idea.

    LAWYER 2: That’s Austin Nowacki.

    THE COURT: All right.

    When Proven’s lead lawyer introduced a colleague who would lead that morning’s arguments, the judge snapped, “Okay. Then you have a seat and let her speak.”

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I love this guy. His videos have shown me to never trust locks

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Is this the guy who shimmed the entite cylinder out of one of those supposedly unpickable locks with just a piece of soda/beer can?

    Edit: Skimmed too fast. It was that guy.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    What a great build up and a cathartic well deserved pay off

    Lest this [the clapback] seem like mere high spirits and hijinks, Lee’s partner and his mother both “received harassing messages through Facebook Messenger,” while other messages targeted Lee’s son, saying things like “I would kill your f—ing n—– child” and calling him a “racemixing pussy.”

    Ahhh the internet I know and love, never change

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    @Powderhorn 10M complains to producer for "not sufficient security" in theirs products sounds not bad as defence line... ^^ ;p

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Or using a square or trowel as a weapon

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is it?

    Even if you own said lock?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 2 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post

    What a fun story. That company seemed to be staffed by a bunch of snowflakes. Even had to bring liberals into it.

    Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.

  • source