Restrictions On Engineer Manuals And Codes

[james.wilson]

the point I'm making is the maintainer or a forum largely made up of maintainers is unlikley to offer a huge amount of help to help me bugger around with kit ?

I don't agree. Open source etc shows that support is demanded and paid well for.

You will find and im sure you have most of the answers to do what you want from forums and such like. Our industry is no different. Those that want no support will go that way, those that want sla etc will go that way. Its not really that different at all.

The issue is I believe is that most think it should be a closed shop with no info. Alas that is not the case and will never be anymore.

[arfur mo]

imho not giving out engineer manuals from within a security trade forum to non-trade members i personally agree with, we all know Google will take you to most manuals for most things, but we are not responsible for any other site's content or conduct.

A rag newspaper slow for news, could pick up on this and by the time they have miss informed J/P and moved on, the publics confidence is damaged, so 'we' can't be seen to endorse directly giving it away, for want of better words.

i sell my systems outright, so as far as clients having engineer manuals i see it they have now bought the panel from me which included everything that came in and including the cardboard box.

i believe not many makers of 'trade only' panels supply more than the user guide and the quick set up sheet, so i have no issue with client having that.

i don't know of any of my systems, or anyone else's where the user has defaulted a system having got a manual, don't say it never happens though. So lets say one did, those that have changed codes from default will know straight away if a setup has been changed, if udl was done it can actually prove it.

Even those installers who use the same codes on all jobs, the felon would need to know this for sure, get hold of a panel to get that code/s and then take a risk that code is not different on other sites or higher security sites, the master code or all user codes have not been changed by the more sensitive owner.

so a risk factor few would be intruders would likely risk their liberty for, while theres always one who might,there are far easier less risk ways.

[james.wilson]

id also like to add 3 points

1.

The client gets hold of an engineering manual for a certified system.

Its certified by our company and we carry all risk on it. If its defeated we are liable. It gets defaulted and reprogrammed by the owner with the best intentions.

It the gets screwed and the system fails to perform. Who is liable?

 

2.

The client gets hold of an engineering manual for a certified system.

As above its certified but he gets engineer access and changes a few items that suits him/her. He/she suffers a loss, knows he/she has messed with the alarm and wants to pass the liability else he/she isn't insured.

 

3.

The client gets hold of an engineering manual for our recent system

They try to default it. Nothing works. It wants a reset from sia before it will work again. We don't get sued for someone else messing with a system we certificate and support.

 

Ill go with 3. Most systems and nothing we used previously gives us this.

[arfur mo]

id also like to add 3 points

1.

The client gets hold of an engineering manual for a certified system.

Its certified by our company and we carry all risk on it. If its defeated we are liable. It gets defaulted and reprogrammed by the owner with the best intentions.

It the gets screwed and the system fails to perform. Who is liable?

2.

The client gets hold of an engineering manual for a certified system.

As above its certified but he gets engineer access and changes a few items that suits him/her. He/she suffers a loss, knows he/she has messed with the alarm and wants to pass the liability else he/she isn't insured.

3.

The client gets hold of an engineering manual for our recent system

They try to default it. Nothing works. It wants a reset from sia before it will work again. We don't get sued for someone else messing with a system we certificate and support.

Ill go with 3. Most systems and nothing we used previously gives us this.

Not sure why your hitting me over the regs you abide by (as if i don't) and me not being registered again?

i don't challenge or disagree with that POV, i was being pragmatic relating to why a would be intruder (who tend to like an easy life) would have an easier time of it using different approaches.

[james.wilson]

 

Not sue why yiur hitting me over the regs and me not being registered again?

 

I wasn't arf, it was not directed at you at all, but if you prefer it?

 

i don't challenge or disagree with that POV, i was being pragmatic relating to why a would be intruder (who tend to like. an easy life) would have easier time of it using different approaches.   

id agree

[sixwheeledbeast]

its a strange one this..cg is some joe public with a hobby/healthy interest in defeating alarms and everyone seem to bend over backwards to help..granted the lad is clever but should he be getting so much help? no one knows who he is really..all in public too..just a thought

No bending over backwards here.

Nothing mentioned that isn't fit for public IMO.

I think of it as if a customer asked me the same what would I say. WWhen it comes to public anyway.

If there was in my opinion, I would have contacted a tea-maker.

[arfur mo]

it might seem odd if compared against getting a Haynes manual, but they are not official works manuals.

 

that inertia i'd gess usually outlast the inquisitiveness.

[Oxo]

Ill go with 3. Most systems and nothing we used previously gives us this.

Be nice if you could use a code ending in 0.

[james.wilson]

You cant use 0 period can you, or I didn't think you could as 0 is used as the clear button

[Oxo]

Yep.

And bloody annoying for the past few customers I can tell you.

 

You can use a 0 with other panels.