Guest G.J.M Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 question the manufacturer's and the bod's who write the standards.. us lesser mortals only follow instructions.
Guest Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 The baldly boffin has beaten a retreat back to his digi box
morph Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 The baldly boffin has beaten a retreat back to his digi box No need to get personal.
Service Engineer Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 No need to get personal.Agreed, No need to get personal Mr Happy.. Also lads, a few of the replies to this thread have BROKEN forum rules..? :!: I suggest you go re-read them. And I wont pick a particular reply to rant over, but I thought were we all grown-ups.?? Several replies have been childish and highly unprofessional. Is this how you want the viewing public to perceive you..? ........................................................ Dave Partridge (Romec Service Engineer)
Tony Heath Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 Well! what a great and enjoyable debate. I'm sorry it seems to be coming to an end. The reasoning and opinions from both sides of the divide were very enlightening. On one side- bellman.rjbsec and edosrun.In the oposite corner Brian Gladman with who I can sympathise after recently having a similar discussion regarding 'Locked engineer codes'. On that occasion Handy Andy you you made remarks that lowered the tone of the debate and you have done it again. Brian are you going to disclose who you supply data to? Regards to all. Tony Heath
Guest Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 In the oposite corner Brian Gladman with who I can sympathise after recently having a similar discussion regarding 'Locked engineer codes'. On that occasion Handy Andy you you made remarks that lowered the tone of the debate would that be the post titled "greedy con merchants" For example, if I have established a relationhip with one maintainer and I find that they have been convicted of burglary, next time i'am down the chemist i'll inplie the pharmacist is a convicted poisoner engineers are employed not only for their fitting skills... but because of their conduct & character, want to cast doubt over this and i'll fight my corner... oh buy the way you both claim to know claim to have a back ground in alarms judging by the content you've both posted, laughable would the nicest way to put it...
Guest rjbsec Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 Well! what a great and enjoyable debate. I'm sorry it seems to be coming to an end. The reasoning and opinions from both sides of the divide were very enlightening. On one side- bellman.rjbsec and edosrun.In the oposite corner Brian Gladman with who I can sympathise after recently having a similar discussion regarding 'Locked engineer codes'. On that occasion Handy Andy you you made remarks that lowered the tone of the debate and you have done it again. Brian are you going to disclose who you supply data to? Regards to all. Tony Heath Glad you enjoyed it. I think it and many others like it highlight the effects of insufficient publicity of the requirements for professional security by those who dictate the conditions, eg Home Office, ACPO, ABI, Inspectorates etc, all of whom should more clearly educate the public as to what to expect from a professional installer endeavouring to comply with their requirements.
cdosrun Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 I agree with rjbsec above in that publicity may help. The real problem that I think Brian was eluding to was that he (as someone with more understanding of the topic at hand) doesn't get treated differently. Quite frankly, I think it boiled down to a debate over whether the few suffer for the many. If every person whom had an alarm system installed was fully appraised of security systems, their installation, quirks, workarounds and the ideal security models, the industry would probably be a little different. The point is that the majority of people don't have a clue (how many stories have their been about "magic beams of light" etc..), and therefore, there are systems, and rules imposed to protect the majority from their ignorance. This involves a professional providing a risk assessment and suggestion of equipment, and then retaining control over the system to prevent illeducated tampering. Brian essentially confirmed this in reply to my comment about vehicle security (incidentally, I am not in the motor trade, just a student, but read about the device some time ago), where he said he wasn't interested as he didn't know anything about vehicular security. This latter position is the same as most people are in when requiring a security system, they don't know (don't care) and are better served by a professional setting the parameters. That is why the security model is this way, it suits the majority (potentially causing a few to be disgruntled, and then they could DIY). Andrew Any statement made or information provided in this post are the mere opinions of the author, and no inferrence is to be made as to the quality of information nor should any reliance be placed upon its contents.
bellman Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 Lots of very valid points in the post above, I myself do have COMPLETE control over my own system, I went so far as to alter some of the default parameters of my panels firmware so if it does ever get defaulted it reverts back to a code only I know (call me paranoid if you wish) so I fully understand Brians point of view and share some of his concerns. But by the same token, we all have to work within parameters laid down by higher authorities so unfortunately our hands are tied most of the time. It's interesting the subjet of transponders cropped up though as I have grave doubts and concerns over their security and validity. Regards Bellman Service Engineer and all round nice bloke ) The views above are mine and NOT those of my employer.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.