|
Posted by tourman on May 15, 2008, 9:27 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
lockout feature simply to protect the integrity of the information in
the panel. That is what the installer code is for. For all the panels
that I am familiar with anyway, the only other way any other company
can change any of the information in the panel is to hardware default
the whole thing back to factory and start fresh, thereby destroying
all the original information that was put in the panel for programming
purposes. Saying you need to lock the board for that purpose is simply
not correct and in most cases seems to be nothing but a smokescreen to
hide the fact that someone wants to make it as difficult and expensive
as they can for any other company to take away the client.
The installer lockout certainly has a valid use if the panel is
leased, or not fully paid for by the client up front. But once the
client owns the board fully, no company has a right to lock the board
- period ! And if they have done so in the past, it is their
responsibility to "make things right" by unlocking the board. Not
doing so is tantamount to selling someone a car and putting a padlock
on the hood so it can never be serviced by anyone other than the
original seller !! The problem of course is with so many small
companies going in and out of business, by the time the client finds
out his board is locked, the previous company is no longer around....
But the fact that I unlock so many boards that have been locked by so
many companies that have moved on, is an indicator to me that this
feature IS misused by many companies. So I say, full speed ahead with
the lawsuit; maybe it will make a few unscrupulous companies think a
little harder before they automatically lock boards with little
thought about future use by the rightful owner of the board !!
wrote:
> The whole problem with lockouts is when a customers contract is up and the
> installing company refuses to unlock the panel with out a legal fight.
> I do not know why companies are so afraid to lose a couple of customers
> maybe if they paid attention to there customers needs they would not have
> to take such actions.
> Just as with the engineered fire systems.If it is not over the counter i
> refuse to use it and when im worried about some one messing with programming
> most of the bigger panels have an auto notify command to central when
> programming is changed .
> If you do not snap shot or other wise make a copy of the programming to show
> there's been a change shame on you.
>
> Yes go ahead and use the lock outs but use them fairly and release them when
> properly requested and there would be no need for this lawsuit and all the
> other nonsense going on in the industry.
> But lets face it we have too many people in this industry that are lower
> than used car salesman and bad lawyers
>
>
>
> > sheesh.
>
> > yah know instead of arguing about protecting the code behind, we should
> > just let the subscribers program the panels from the start; here ya go mr.
> > jones...what's this...oh it's the programming key and programming sheet.
> > We programmed it and test the system it works fine, but since you want to
> > have access to the programming, we defaulted the panel so you can program
> > it your way...there ya go.
>
> > --
> > **Crash Gordon**
>
> >> "Local-programming lockout", sometimes referred to as a "computer virus",
> >> is a programming option available to dealer-installers found in several
> >> brands of security alarm systems (including Ademco, FBI, First Alert,
> >> Honeywell, Napco, and others) and which can be used to prevent
> >> subscribers from accessing the "programming mode" of their security alarm
> >> system, and thereby from selecting a competitive vendor for repair or
> >> monitoring services.
>
> >>http://911.com/alarmnews.html
>
> >> Oh... PLEASE! Don't tell me someone actually *believes* this?
| 
XML site map