[ Post made via Mobile Device ]






I deal with security on many levels, and the last time I looked. ( about a year ago) The consumer priced units had locks that had FAR too high a false positive/false negative rate to even be close to acceptable to me.student wrote:Has anybody used a "fingerprint" safe? Did it work reliably for you?



GeneFrenkle wrote:What problem do all these electronic locks solve that simplex locks don't?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Those things never seem to work reliably, at least for me - they're on the laptops I'm assigned. I guess I use my hands too much (scrapes, blisters, etc.) so it's easy for my fingerprint to be different than the stored digest. I was just wondering about the criteria that would be used to select an electronic, attribute-based identity (like a fingerprint) with a probability of success over a purely mechanical, minimal maintenance solution when it comes to securing a firearm for defensive purposes.SpanishInquisition wrote: If they work right, the biometric ones require you to swipe one finger across the reader to open it. Basically you set them up to recognize one or more of your fingerprints, or anyone else authorized to open the box. Could save lots of time because you don't have to remember conbinations, look for keys, etc.
GeneFrenkle wrote:SpanishInquisition wrote:
Those things never seem to work reliably, at least for me - they're on the laptops I'm assigned. I guess I use my hands too much (scrapes, blisters, etc.) so it's easy for my fingerprint to be different than the stored digest. I was just wondering about the criteria that would be used to select an electronic, attribute-based identity (like a fingerprint) with a probability of success over a purely mechanical, minimal maintenance solution when it comes to securing a firearm for defensive purposes.
Is pressing a couple of buttons a practical problem that needs to be solved particularly by swiping a finger one or more times over a reader?
I guess I'm not on board with the idea that everything needs to be electronic particularly when a sure and reliable solution already exists.




Only 2200? Speaking as a teenager myself you must have one with an incredible amount of patience. Not only than because He must be pretty organized because otherwise you'll forget what you entered and start repeating yourself. Every safe has flaws that can be found with quick searches of the internet. It sounds like you have a problem a safe cannot solve. Biometrics can be fooled as well, more over electrics bypassed and the manual lock used.student wrote:GeneFrenkle wrote:SpanishInquisition wrote:
Those things never seem to work reliably, at least for me - they're on the laptops I'm assigned. I guess I use my hands too much (scrapes, blisters, etc.) so it's easy for my fingerprint to be different than the stored digest. I was just wondering about the criteria that would be used to select an electronic, attribute-based identity (like a fingerprint) with a probability of success over a purely mechanical, minimal maintenance solution when it comes to securing a firearm for defensive purposes.
Is pressing a couple of buttons a practical problem that needs to be solved particularly by swiping a finger one or more times over a reader?
I guess I'm not on board with the idea that everything needs to be electronic particularly when a sure and reliable solution already exists.
My goals are to 1) To secure my handguns from wife's kids who were not raised around me and guns and 2) To allow rapid access in case of emergency
The simplex lots at http://www.policeone.com/police-product ... sy-Access/ only have 2,200 possible key combinations. A teenager home alone for the afternoon could run through them all. Especially with some youtube help.
The Gunvault "key press combination" lock will time out after 20 or 30 failed entries for a couple of minutes to keep somebody from rapidly running through every combination and has a million or more combinations. That would be a satisfactory solution for me. It just seems that if some one is busting through your door, you might forget or mess up a complex key combination under the pressure. If all you had to do was touch your finger to it, that would be great.
Some of the gunvault lockboxes had both an external plugin power supply and a battery backup to use in case of power failure. It also had a tubular lock mechanical override in case both failed. The idea being you put that key in your safe deposit box or such and get it in case of deep failure.
It's been a few years since I looked at them, but I assume the bio ones work in the same way. I'm mainly asking if the fingerprint scanning technology works reliably.

+1jdonovan wrote:I deal with security on many levels, and the last time I looked. ( about a year ago) The consumer priced units had locks that had FAR too high a false positive/false negative rate to even be close to acceptable to me.student wrote:Has anybody used a "fingerprint" safe? Did it work reliably for you?
Some of the units were getting close to a 10% falsing rate. Even the good ones were barely above %5 false.
I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Speed, that's about it. There actually further DOWN the food chain. If you look at safe prices, the electronic/bio ones are considerably cheaper than dial combos.GeneFrenkle wrote:What problem do all these electronic locks solve that simplex locks don't?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]